The Dispositions Requisite for the Reception of the Eucharist

139. The required disposition. 1. For receiving the Eucharist with fruit there is required the state of grace, because the Eucharist is a sacrament of the living. Therefore the Apostle admonishes: But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice;¹ and from the declaration of the Council of Trent this proving consists in this, that he who approaches holy communion be conscious to himself of no mortal sin.²

a. A twofold disposition as regards the soul can be distinguished: substantial, which consists in immunity from mortal sin, and accidental, which consists in immunity from actual venial sin and in actual devotion with which the sacrament is received. On the former depends the very effect of this sacrament; on the latter depends the degree of the effects which holy communion can produce. The former is required under grave sin, the latter under venial sin; for he sins against the reverence due to so great a sacrament who approaches with actual venial sin or without any devotion and preparation.

Therefore for perceiving the effect of this sacrament no disposition besides the state of grace is required. Therefore he who approaches without actual devotion or with venial sins not yet remitted, indeed even he who in receiving the Eucharist commits a venial sin, does not lack the substantial fruit of this sacrament. For the sacraments confer grace ex opere operato on those not placing an obstacle; but the obstacle of this sacrament is nothing except grave sin. But the better the disposition is, the greater also is the fruit which is perceived from the sacrament.

b. Since there is an obligation of procuring actual devotion for oneself before holy communion, he commits a venial sin of irreverence not only who communicates with actual light sin, but also who communicates without actual devotion. Nevertheless the same measure of devotion is not required in all, but one fitting the condition and state of the communicant: greater, namely, in those who communicate more often and strive after perfection than in those who rarely communicate and are involved in secular business. Hence it can happen that the defect of particular devotion which in a layman is no sin is a venial sin in a priest or religious.³

¹ 1 Cor. 11, 28.

² Cf. Council of Trent, sess. 13, c. 7.

³ Cf. Lugo, disp. 14, sect. 1; Suarez, disp. 66, sect. 1.

140. 2. It does not suffice to repair, before communion, the state of grace lost through sin by perfect contrition; but by the prescription of the Church: a. he who is in the state of mortal sin, before communion, is bound under grave sin to premise sacramental confession, unless there is lacking the supply of a confessor and at the same time there urges the necessity of celebrating or communicating; nevertheless they should first elicit an act of perfect contrition; b. a priest who, necessity urging, has celebrated without previous confession is bound to confess as soon as possible.¹

alpha. There are some who say that the precept of confessing before communion is divine: for by the precept of the Apostle, which he himself received from Christ the Lord, proving is to be premised before communion; but this proving, from the declaration of the Church, is sacramental confession. But this opinion, as lacking solid reason, is rejected by others.²

beta. If someone, after a confession made in good faith, remembers a mortal sin which he forgot to confess, confession before communion can be advised, but he cannot be obliged to it. For the Council commands confession to him who is conscious to himself of mortal sin not yet destroyed through confession; but in our case the communicant is not conscious to himself of sin not yet destroyed through confession, for the sin omitted in confession has already been indirectly remitted. Therefore neither is an act of contrition strictly required before communion in this case. Although, therefore, according to the most common opinion of the ancients, a sin omitted through forgetfulness must be declared in confession before communion, nevertheless, for the reason stated, the contrary opinion, which denies this obligation, has prevailed.

gamma. He who doubts concerning a grave sin committed, even if the doubt is truly probable, likewise cannot be obliged to confession before Mass or communion; for only he is conscious to himself of mortal sin who knows certainly that he has committed it. Nevertheless confession is to be advised, and even enjoined on him who does not know how to form his conscience, unless it is a question of a scrupulous person. But the communicant in this case must try to elicit perfect contrition before communion, lest he expose himself to the danger of frustrating the effect of the sacrament.³

delta. He who has applied a serious effort to eliciting perfect contrition can safely approach holy communion, even if he doubts whether in reality he has happened to elicit an act of it; for a doubt can scarcely exist unless negative and to be spurned.

epsilon. Practically, in a case of doubt concerning a grave sin committed, the penitent is to be directed from the presumption taken from those things which ordinarily happen to him in temptations of this kind. For if in temptations of this kind he is not accustomed to consent, it is to be presumed with moral certitude that consent was not present, and therefore holy communion is to be permitted without confession and contrition; but if he ordinarily consents, it is to be presumed that consent was also present this time, and therefore confession is to be urged.

¹ Council of Trent, sess. 13, c. 7; Cn. 856, 807.

² 1 Cor. 11, 23 ss. Cf. Lugo, disp. 14, n. 69 ss.

³ There are not lacking authors who think that no obligation exists in this case of premising an act of perfect contrition, because this obligation is not certainly established. But since the obligation of forestalling the frustration of the effect of the sacrament is certain, the obligation is also certain of using the means necessary for this end, namely either perfect contrition or confession with attrition. For it is not asked whether it is licit or not to approach holy communion without contrition, but whether frustration of the effect of the sacrament is absolutely to be forestalled. Cf. Lehmkuhl, II, n. 150 (n. 208).

141. Declaration of this precept. A twofold condition is required so that it be licit to celebrate or communicate without confession having been premised: a. that the supply of a confessor be lacking; b. that the necessity of celebrating or communicating urge.

1. The supply of a confessor is lacking if no confessor is present, and one absent, with regard to the circumstances of the person (illness, necessary business) or of the journey (a distance of one hour), cannot be approached without great difficulty. But it is not said to be lacking if only one's own confessor is lacking, or if there is present only a familiar confessor, to whom you could confess only with great shame.

a. It is clear that there is no obligation of confessing if an approved confessor is indeed present, to whom, nevertheless, the penitent cannot confess without certain and grave harm to another, as if he cannot declare the sin without the confessor knowing the accomplice; or if the penitent has only a sin reserved to the bishop, and no confessor is present who has power over reserved cases.

b. It is certain that a cause external to confession and sufficiently grave excuses from this precept. All admit that danger of grave scandal and infamy constitutes a cause of this kind; it must be affirmed that shame alone arising from the fact that afterward you must converse or live with the confessor is not a cause of this kind. Nevertheless the opinion does not seem improbable that extraordinarily great and invincible shame, as if an uncle had to confess a shameful matter to his nephew, excuses from this precept.¹ This excuse, however, is not to be extended to the case in which a pastor would have to manifest a grave and shameful sin to a young vicar, unless the repugnance in the particular case is extraordinarily great.

2. The necessity of celebrating or communicating must be grave so that the priest can say Mass with only contrition premised and a layperson can receive communion; otherwise they must omit Mass or communion. Hence rarely will there be present a necessity of communicating in a layperson, more frequently in a priest a necessity of celebrating.

This necessity is judged present in a priest: alpha. if he is bound to celebrate by office, so that the faithful may hear Mass as prescribed, or so that funerals or nuptials may be had;² beta. if he cannot omit Mass without grave infamy or scandal of the people; gamma. if the priest, already clothed in vestments or with Mass already begun, commits mortal sin, or only then finally remembers a sin previously committed, and cannot confess without mark of infamy; delta. if a particle is to be consecrated so that Viaticum can be administered to a dying person. But the necessity of celebrating is not judged present if the priest was going to celebrate only from devotion, or for gaining an indulgence, or from the obligation of a benefice.

¹ Berardi proposes this opinion (Prax. conf.^3, III, n. 338), to which Genicot assents, Theol. mor. inst., II, n. 193, and Casus consc., II, p. 214.

² To celebration due from office can also be numbered the case in which, because of a particular devotion, a frequent people comes together to hear Mass, even if not prescribed. Cf. Genicot, Casus consc., II, p. 213.

142. Concerning the precept imposed on priests alone of confessing as soon as possible if, urgent necessity requiring, they have celebrated without previous confession, these things must be noted:

a. It is a true precept¹ obliging under grave sin those who, urgent necessity requiring, have celebrated without confession, even sacrilegiously, provided that they have the supply of a confessor.

b. It does not oblige priests who, without necessity, celebrate in mortal sin without confession having been premised, because the Council speaks expressly of the priest who celebrates without confession when necessity urges.

Authors, who with almost common consent interpret the law in this way, note that the Council wished by this law to take care lest priests defer confession under pretext of the necessity of celebrating, but did not directly wish to take care against sacrilegious celebrations; for the law would have profited little for obtaining this end. And indeed a priest who knowingly dares to celebrate sacrilegiously will scarcely care for this ecclesiastical precept. Therefore those who have celebrated without necessity are not affected by this law.

c. The obligation of confessing as soon as possible is to be understood in such a way that confession be made at least within three days, since the term as soon as possible, as in other human laws, is rightly understood morally, i.e., of the space of three days. This obligation urges even if the priest after three days will not celebrate, but only after one or another week. Nevertheless on the second or third day of this three-day period he cannot celebrate without confession, unless again and again the necessity of celebrating and the lack of a confessor continue.

d. Accidentally, however, it can happen that the priest is obliged to confession even on the same day, namely if on that day there is an occasion of confessing and he himself wishes or ought to celebrate on the following day, or if he foresees that in the following days there will be no occasion of confessing.

Article Fourth. On the Disposition of the Body

The disposition of the body also is twofold: one essential, which consists in the natural fast; the other accidental, which consists in external reverence and must appear in decency of dress and cleanliness of body. The essential disposition is required under grave sin, the accidental under light sin.

This twofold disposition of body is taken from the Roman Missal, which, looking not only to the celebrant but also to communicants, treats in chapter IX De defectibus of the disposition of body and brings forward the following: defect of the natural fast and defect of cleanliness arising from pollution, even if the stain of the soul has been destroyed by confession; for it says: "unless something else seems good to the confessor."

¹ Cf. proposition 38 of Alexander VII: "The mandate of Trent made to a priest sacrificing from necessity with mortal sin, of confessing as soon as possible, is a counsel, not a precept."

143. With decent dress. The reverence due to this most worthy sacrament demands that communicants approach the sacred table reverently and devoutly in decent and clean dress. Hence:

a. The negligence and carelessness by which someone approaches holy communion in disordered, dirty, or torn garments is certainly venially sinful.

b. If the immodesty and indecency by which women sometimes approach the sacred table, with the breast not sufficiently covered and surrounded with vain ornament, should proceed so far that, having regard to the custom of regions, they offend chaste eyes and are a scandal to others, they would even sin gravely and would have to be kept from communion.

c. It is fitting that soldiers approach the sacred table after laying aside arms, but they are bound to this by no law.

d. Priests and deacons, by prescription of the Church, must approach holy communion clothed with a stole, if they communicate publicly.

144. With a clean body. Reverence toward the most holy sacrament also demands this: that communicants approach the sacred table with a clean body, i.e., without an external and removable stain and without filth. For although a stain of the body, whether external or hidden, does not of itself impede holy communion, since purity of the soul is not diminished by defilement of the body, nevertheless decency requires this cleanliness too.

a. If an external stain is present which is hoped to be removed shortly, it is fitting that holy communion be deferred for a short time. But if the stain is lasting, there is no reason that someone be deprived of holy communion on that account. Nevertheless a priest infected by a disease which excites horror can indeed celebrate, but privately, not publicly.

b. Women at the time of menstrual flow and of purification after childbirth, since these things happen without fault and do not outwardly appear, are not prohibited from receiving holy communion.

c. Involuntary pollution does not prohibit from Mass or from communion. Therefore of itself it is not necessary on that account to omit Mass or communion, especially if there is present a particular reason on that day of celebrating, e.g., in those who are accustomed to celebrate daily, or of communicating, e.g., in communities where on stated days all approach communion, or if an indulgence is to be gained, etc.¹

d. The marriage debt rendered on the preceding night with due end and manner in no way impedes holy communion. Indeed, if the debt is exercised for pleasure alone and therefore sinfully, it is not necessary that the married abstain from the sacred table, especially since in them there is ordinarily a reasonable cause either of approaching holy communion or of performing the conjugal act.

¹ Cf. Lugo, De euchar., disp. 15, sect. 1.

145. On the natural fast. 1. By the precept of the Church, obliging under grave sin, it is required that the one about to communicate observe the natural fast, i.e., abstinence from every food and drink, however minimal, from the preceding midnight. The foundation of this precept is decency and reverence toward the most holy sacrament; for it is plainly fitting that the Eucharist be received before every other food.

a. The natural fast before communion, which is also called sacramental, introduced at first through particular statutes and through custom, has been sanctioned by ecclesiastical law.¹

b. The sacramental fast requires that no other food or drink be received on that day, i.e., after midnight, before holy communion. But it does not require that the Eucharist be received into a stomach entirely empty or fasting, nor that the Eucharist be the first substance, but only that it be the first food (or drink) which on that day is received into the stomach.

c. That one who celebrates soon after midnight must abstain for some time from taking food or drink is prescribed by no law. Therefore, although of itself he can still eat or drink a little before midnight, nevertheless, apart from unforeseen cases, decency demands that he abstain from food and drink for several hours, about four, before Mass, lest sacred food be mixed with profane food taken a little before.²

d. He who positively doubts whether he has taken something of food or drink, and in like manner he who positively doubts whether what he took he took before or after midnight, can approach holy communion; for unless it is certainly established that the fast has been broken, he is not bound to abstain from holy communion.

e. The law of the sacramental fast, although it is an ecclesiastical law, nevertheless does not admit smallness of matter. Since the law was established from a motive of religion because of reverence toward Christ the Lord present in the Eucharist, he who violates it commits a sin of sacrilege.

f. The precept by which formerly the faithful after holy communion were bound to keep the fast until evening no longer is in force. Nevertheless natural decency demands that one abstain from food and drink for as long as the sacred species in the stomach are not yet corrupted. Therefore he who immediately after holy communion eats or drinks without a reasonable cause sins venially against the reverence of the most holy sacrament. But he is free from all fault who soon after communion spits, provided that no fragment of the host remains in the mouth or throat. For there is no danger of irreverence, since the way by which spittle flows into the mouth is not the way of food and drink.

¹ The Code of Canon Law contains an explicit precept concerning this matter. For the faithful, Cn. 858, 1: "He who has not observed the natural fast from midnight cannot be admitted to the holy Eucharist, unless danger of death urges, or necessity of preventing irreverence toward the sacrament." For priests celebrating, Cn. 808: "It is not licit for a priest to celebrate unless the natural fast from midnight has been observed." Indeed Cn. 2321 wills that the Ordinary suspend from sacred functions priests who have presumed to celebrate not fasting or twice on the same day. Since the law is ecclesiastical, it can be taken away by dispensation of the Supreme Pontiff; but dispensation, which formerly is read as scarcely ever granted, today is more easily granted, but only to the sick who are not gravely bedridden, who cannot remain fasting, for communicating, not however to priests for celebrating.

² When the Supreme Pontiff Leo XIII (26 Feb. 1885) granted the privilege of celebrating Masses in the church at Lourdes immediately after midnight, he added this condition, that the priests celebrating abstain from food and drink four hours before Mass.

146. 2. Midnight, from which the communicant must be fasting, begins from the first stroke of the clock indicating the twelfth hour. Therefore for one about to communicate, who while drinking hears the hour strike, it is not licit to finish the draught; nevertheless he is not bound to spit out what, while drinking, he still has in his mouth.

Some assign this reason for the matter: because the Church is not judged to wish to oblige to such rusticity; others perhaps more rightly: because in that place there will not be lacking approved clocks which have not yet indicated twelve.

The twelfth hour can be estimated from all the public clocks of the region ordinarily well directed, even if they mark a time diverse from the true time, namely either local mean time or legal mean time. Therefore it is licit to follow the latest clock, provided the error is not established and that clock does not ordinarily err.¹

The Church has permitted this because it does not require that the faithful in observing ecclesiastical precepts use a computation of time different from that which publicly directs the other affairs of men in individual places.² Therefore it is always licit to follow true time, but it is also licit to follow mean time, whether local or legal, according as the clocks of the region indicate the one or the other.

¹ Cn. 33.

² S. Poenitentiaria, 18 June 1873; 29 Nov. 1882. Cf. Acta S. Sedis, VII, p. 399.

147. On the breaking of the fast. The natural fast is broken by eating or drinking, i.e., by the taking of any food or drink which is taken in the manner of food or drink.

a. For the notion of eating or drinking it makes no difference of itself whether something is taken deliberately or by accident and beyond intention; therefore he who in sleep drinks water, or who inadvertently swallows a leaf which he was rolling about in his mouth, is no longer fasting.

b. Therefore three things are required for the breaking of the fast: one of them pertains to the thing which is taken, namely that it be food or drink; the other two pertain to the manner in which the thing is taken, namely that it be taken by the mouth from outside, and that it be taken by eating or drinking and descend into the stomach by swallowing.

148. 1. In order that the fast be broken, it is required that that which is taken have the nature of food or drink. Now by the name of food is designated only and everything which, received into the stomach, can in some manner, even if not fully, be digested and converted into the substance of man; for what can in no way be altered in the stomach is not said to be eaten. But by the name of drink is signified every liquid (which does not at the same time nourish).

a. What can be digested, and what cannot, must be determined chiefly from the common estimation of men. Hence he who swallows iron, glass, wood, nails, hair, scraped-off fruit stones, threads of silk or wool, and similar things, does not break the fast; but he breaks it who swallows straw, wax, paper, medicinal powder, etc.

b. But if from the doctrine of chemists it should be established that some thing commonly considered digestible, as chalk, can in no way be altered in the stomach, that thing would not have the nature of food and drink, and therefore would not break the fast. Nevertheless a thing which in common estimation is not considered digestible must not on that account be reckoned among foods because chemists say that it is altered a little in the stomach.

149. 2. In order that that which is taken be taken by the mouth from outside and be swallowed: for the fast is broken by eating; but what is not taken by the mouth from outside, even if it is swallowed voluntarily, and likewise what is only put into the mouth, without being swallowed, is not said to be eaten.

a. Therefore he who swallows a humor flowing inwardly from the head, or blood flowing from the tongue, gums, or teeth, or tobacco powder drawn in by the nostrils, or a drop of water descending through the ears, does not injure the fast; but he injures it who sucks blood from the wound of a finger, who licks tears flowing from the eyes, blood from the exterior lips, etc., unless some small amount beyond intention descends into the stomach in the manner of saliva, etc.

b. He who, for washing out the stomach by means of some instrument, draws in water and again rejects it, remains fasting, even if a small part of the water remains in the stomach, because nothing is taken by swallowing in the manner of drink. Indeed also, as it seems, it is licit to put down into the stomach the tube of the instrument smeared with oil, without the fast being broken.¹

¹ Cf. Monitore eccles. (Roma, Direzione del Mon. eccl.), t. 9, p. 184.

150. 3. In order that that which is taken be taken by eating or drinking, or in the manner of food or drink, not in the manner of saliva or respiration: for what is taken in the manner of saliva or respiration, by the common judgment of men, is not eaten.

That is taken in the manner of saliva which is inseparably mixed with saliva and, with it, beyond intention (even if advertently), is passed into the stomach; that is taken by respiration which, flying through the air, is drawn in by breathing and beyond intention (even if advertently) descends into the stomach. But what is sent down with saliva in greater quantity, or what is deliberately taken with saliva, or drawn from the air and swallowed, breaks the fast. For although it makes no difference to the notion of eating whether a thing is taken by accident or deliberately, nevertheless, if something is taken purposely with saliva or by breathing, the intention causes the taking to be voluntary swallowing and to have the character of eating or drinking.

a. Therefore he who rinses his mouth and by accident swallows a little water mixed with saliva; he who keeps some aromatic thing in his mouth, deliberately swallowing nothing, even if something descends with the saliva; he who holds a tobacco leaf in his mouth and rubs it with his teeth, but deliberately does not swallow the juice, but spits it out, does not break the fast. Yet chewing of this sort, unless there is present a reasonable cause, e.g., of health or of purifying the breath, is not becoming before communion. In the same way, he who by breathing draws in vapors from food or drink present; he who draws tobacco smoke through the mouth; he who passes down a fly, dust, snow, rainwater drawn from the air, does not break the fast: for these things either do not have the nature of food, or are taken in the manner of respiration or saliva.

b. But he who voluntarily swallows even the smallest thing, with whatever intention this is done, who, for example, takes in the manner of medicine a single little drop or a single grain, ceases to be fasting and is excluded from communion; in like manner, he who, lying down in the evening, takes into his mouth a piece of sugar to soften hoarseness, if the whole has not been liquefied and swallowed before midnight, does not remain fasting.¹

c. Remnants of food which cling between the teeth do not break the fast, whether they are taken involuntarily or even voluntarily. This indeed is certain from the rubric of the Missal;² but in assigning the reason why those remnants do not hinder the fast, authors do not agree: according to some, because they are not taken from outside; and according to others, because they are taken in the manner of saliva. Perhaps better you would say with Lehmkuhl that this comes from the definition of the Church, which, in order to forestall anxieties and doubts in these matters which occur rather often and can with difficulty be guarded against, has itself interpreted the law more broadly.

d. That which is taken together with the sacred species does not break the fast, which the Church commands to be observed in a human manner. Therefore if someone in the first Mass on the day of the Nativity should have taken a fly or a small particle of wax which had fallen into the chalice, or drops of wine clinging inside the chalice, even though they were not consecrated, he can still celebrate another Mass. To the sick (even those not gravely bedridden) the sacred species can be offered with wine or water, just as the priest himself on Good Friday takes the particle of the consecrated host with wine, even if perhaps the water or wine descends into the stomach before the sacred species.

¹ Cf. Sporer-Bierbaum III, pars 2, n. 467 ss.

² Missale rom., De defectibus IX, 3.

151. Causes excusing from the natural fast. The precept of the sacramental fast belongs to the gravest precepts of the Church; therefore, from the custom of the Church, which the Council of Constance reports, it ceases only in a case of infirmity or of another necessity granted or admitted by law or by the Church.¹ Moreover five cases of this sort are enumerated, four of which are indeed admitted by all, but concerning the fifth authors dispute.

When the individual cases in which the law of the sacramental fast ceases are considered, it will be clear that not just any grave inconvenience excuses from this law, but only the necessity of fulfilling a higher law, which cannot be fulfilled while the fast is observed.

Therefore the Eucharist can be received by one not fasting:

1. For completing the sacrifice: for the obligation of the divine precept concerning the completion of the sacrifice is greater than that of the ecclesiastical precept concerning the fast to be observed before communion. Therefore:

a. If a priest in the sacred action itself, after the consecration of one or both species, remembers that he is not fasting, he can and must communicate, not fasting, in order to complete the sacrifice; but if he remembers before consecration, he must withdraw from the altar, where this can be done without infamy and scandal.

b. If a priest performing the sacred action, after the consecration of one or both species, being overtaken by a sudden illness, cannot complete the sacrifice, then, in default of a fasting priest, it must be completed by another priest who is not fasting.

c. If a priest has poured water instead of wine into the chalice, and does not notice it until after the reception either of all or of part of the water, he must, in order to complete the sacrifice, consecrate again and receive the consecrated species.

d. If a priest, after the ablution has already been taken, finds a whole consecrated host or remnants of hosts, he can and must receive them, if another Mass is not to be said that day and if they cannot be placed in the ciborium or be kept decently in another way, because that reception is as it were the complement of the sacrifice and of the banquet performed.²

¹ Sess. 13.

² Missale rom., De defectibus VII, 2.

152. 2. For avoiding irreverence toward the most holy sacrament: for the natural law of reverence due to the sacrament is to be preferred to the ecclesiastical law of the fast before communion.

Therefore, if there is imminent danger from fire, from the attack of enemies, from infidels or heretics by whom this sacrament would be treated injuriously, the consecrated hosts can and must be received by a priest who is not fasting and, if he is absent, even by a layman with his own hands; or a priest can offer them to laypersons who are not fasting. Cf. cn. 858.

153. 3. For avoiding public scandal: for the obligation of the natural law concerning the avoiding of scandal is greater than this precept of the Church.

a. Therefore, if a priest before consecration remembers that he is not fasting and cannot withdraw from the altar without infamy and scandal of the people, he can communicate though not fasting. The same also is to be conceded to a layman who, about to communicate, is already present at the altar and remembers that he is not fasting, namely where he cannot withdraw without disgrace and scandal.

b. If a pastor on a Sunday, whether by accident or by fault no longer fasting, cannot omit the sacred action without grave scandal and offense of the people or without his own grave infamy, he certainly could perform the sacred action even though not fasting. But this cause alone, namely lest the people on a feast of precept have to be deprived of Mass, does not excuse from the law of the fast, which is graver than the precept of hearing Mass.¹ In a case of this sort, however, other excusing causes often concur, especially scandal of the people, danger of infamy, and finally the danger that many, although an opportune occasion exists and although they could and ought to go elsewhere to hear Mass, will gravely neglect to do so. Besides, a priest who is not ill spoken of among the faithful will easily remove the danger of scandal and infamy by candidly declaring the cause for which he cannot celebrate. But if the faithful cannot go to a nearby church to hear Mass, it is helpful to institute another sacred function in place of the Mass.

c. Many authors concede that a newly ordained priest who has inadvertently broken the fast can celebrate his first Mass, if circumstances concur in which it cannot be deferred without very grave inconveniences, as if many relatives have come from elsewhere, if it is publicly known that the first Mass is to be celebrated today, but the breaking of the fast has remained hidden: for ordinarily the reason of scandal will excuse; but if no scandal is to be feared, it is licit in this case to use epikeia.²

¹ S. Officium, 2 Dec. 1874.

² Cf. Gobat, Experient., tr. 3, n. 411; Lacroix, l. 6, pr. 1, n. 583; Genicot, Theol. mor. instit., II, n. 202.

154. 4. For receiving viaticum in danger of death: for the Council of Constance declares that the sick laboring under a grave illness joined with danger of death are exempt from the law of the fast to be observed before communion,¹ and the Roman Ritual has: Viaticum can be given to those shortly about to die when they are not fasting.² Therefore these, as exempt, are not bound to observe the fast, even though they could observe it without grave inconvenience.

a. This exemption, however, does not apply to those who are brought into danger of death not from illness but because of an external cause: for then both the Council and the Ritual speak only of the sick. Therefore those who are not sick, as soldiers before battle, persons condemned to death, etc., must observe the fast before viaticum. But if they cannot observe it without great inconvenience, viaticum can be given even to those not fasting.³

b. If it is doubtful whether the sick person is in probable danger of death or not, whether the disease is truly lethal or not, nevertheless viaticum can be administered to him though not fasting, both because the obligation of the fast is not certain, and because the Church is rightly presumed to wish in this case to favor the sick person, lest he be exposed to the danger of dying without viaticum. This holds especially when the sick person is far from the church, or the priest can no longer return to him; for then the danger is greater of dying without viaticum.

¹ Cf. sess. 13.

² Rituale rom., tit. 4, c. 4, n. 4; cf. cn. 858, from which the same is inferred.

³ S. C. de prop. fid., 21 July 1841.

155. 5. For administering viaticum. There are those who add this fifth case to the preceding: namely, if there is no consecrated host for viaticum, a priest who is not fasting can celebrate, even if he has already celebrated on that day. And this indeed is certain, if there is question of administering viaticum to himself; for he who is exempt from the fast so that he can communicate, is also exempt so that he can celebrate. But if there is question of administering viaticum to another, many authors concede it either absolutely or at least probably,¹ and not without reason: for the divine law, which commands the reception of viaticum, is to be preferred to the ecclesiastical law commanding the fast before celebration, especially since from this no relaxation of the law of the fast to be observed before communion is to be feared. Besides, St. Alphonsus, whose probable opinions the Church permits in practice, says that this opinion is probable.

¹ Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 286.

156. How often holy communion can be ministered to a gravely sick person who is not fasting. Holy communion can be given more often to the sick dangerously bedridden, even when they are not fasting, not only if a new danger recurs, but also in the same danger; indeed nothing prevents it from being offered to them as often as they desire it for the consolation and help of the soul and the circumstances of persons and places permit, even if this were done daily.¹

a. For the Council of Constance declares the sick dangerously bedridden simply exempt from the law of the natural fast. And certainly the reason for exempting them is not only the obligation of receiving viaticum, but also the necessity of the soul, by which the sick especially at the time of death need the help and consolation of this sacrament. Therefore, if the sick person can remain fasting without inconvenience, he should be advised, out of reverence toward the most holy sacrament, to receive holy communion fasting; but he is not bound to this.

b. Therefore the Roman Ritual admonishes:² "But if the sick person, having received viaticum, lives some days . . . and wishes to communicate, the pastor will not be lacking to his pious desire." These words are to be understood of the reception of the most holy sacrament by one not fasting. Therefore all the provincial synods held in recent times exhort pastors to bring the Eucharist more often to the gravely sick, even if they cannot observe the natural fast.³ With these agrees cn. 864, 3 cited above (n. 138).

c. If holy communion is administered to the gravely bedridden sick, whether they have already been refreshed by viaticum or not yet, the ordinary form is used: The Body of our Lord, etc.

¹ Cf. Zeitschrift f. k. Th., 1880, p. 717 ff.

² Rituale rom., tit. 4, c. 4, n. 3.

³ Cf. Collectio lacens., under the word Viaticum.

157. Whether it is licit to give communion to one who is not dangerously bedridden, but because of long-lasting illness cannot observe the fast, when he is not fasting. The Holy See has resolved this question, disputed up to now, in such a way that it is now established which sick persons, and how often, can receive holy communion when they are not fasting.¹ Namely, the sick who have already been bedridden for a month without certain hope of soon recovering can receive holy communion once or twice in the week, even if they have previously taken some medicine or something in the manner of drink,² but with the counsel of the confessor employed in this matter.

a. The privilege conceded by this decree must be extended also to those who, because of the quality of the disease, cannot lie in bed, but are forced to remain outside the bed; likewise to those whom the disease permits to remain outside the bed during the day for a time.³

b. Besides these sick persons there are others who properly are not called sick, since they habitually remain outside bed, go out from the house, indeed come to church, and yet cannot observe the fast. To these the privilege conceded to the sick cannot be extended, lest under the pretext of infirmity the precept of the fast gradually be relaxed. In order that these also may be able to receive holy communion, either holy communion must be administered to them so early that up to that time they can observe the fast, or a dispensation from the sacramental fast must be sought, which in our time is more easily granted.⁴

c. If, however, in a sick person of this sort there is question not of communion from devotion, but of Easter communion to be received by precept, already some more recent theologians think it probable that in that case the law of the fast ceases: for the divine-ecclesiastical precept of communicating at Easter prevails over the merely ecclesiastical precept of observing the fast before communion. Nevertheless the scandal of the faithful must be guarded against.⁵

d. If someone bedridden from a non-grave illness cannot observe the natural fast and desires to receive holy communion more often in the week, the privilege cannot be extended beyond communion twice; but nothing prevents him from communicating twice in the week not fasting, and on other days fasting, if he observes the fast, although with difficulty.⁶

e. Priests can indeed use this privilege conceded to those not dangerously bedridden, when the required conditions are supposed, for communicating in the manner of laypeople, but not likewise for celebrating.

¹ S. C. C., 7 Dec. 1906. The resolution of the Sacred Congregation was somewhat modified by cn. 858, 2.

² The Holy Office, 7 Sept. 1897, declared: the words in the manner of drink are to be understood so that it is licit to take broth, coffee, and other liquid foods with which some substance has been mixed, e.g., flour (semolino, emoule), grated bread (pangrattato, pain rape), etc., provided the mixture does not lose the nature of liquid food.

³ S. C. C., 6 March 1907.

⁴ Formula for petitioning from the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments a dispensation from the sacramental fast: Most Blessed Father, Stephen N. of the diocese N., although he does not lie in bed because of infirmity, nevertheless suffers from such weakness of stomach that it is morally impossible for him to observe the natural fast prescribed before holy communion. Therefore, humbly prostrate at the feet of Your Holiness, he suppliantly asks the faculty of taking something in the manner of drink before he approaches to receive holy communion.

⁵ Of this opinion are Berardi, Examen conf., I, n. 764; D'Annibale, III, n. 411; Gasparri, De euchar., II, n. 1129; Genicot, Theol. mor. inst., II, n. 202; Lehmkuhl, Casus consc., n. 176; Gennari, Consultazioni, I, cons. 50, n. 6.

⁶ Cf. Monitore eccles., 1907, p. 472.

158. On frequent communion itself. 1. By the name frequent communion there is properly designated only communion which is received several times in the week or even daily. Therefore weekly communion is not properly and strictly called frequent.

The use of frequent communion took hold especially after the Council of Trent, and today it flourishes and is strong widely in the Church. Its most bitter enemies were the Jansenists, who, under a false pretext of religion, kept the faithful away from receiving sacred communion more frequently: for they demanded such purity and holiness of soul in the recipient that everyone had to consider himself unworthy of frequent communion.

2. According to the mind of the Church, frequent communion must be earnestly recommended to the faithful. Concerning the use of sacred communion the Church has established two things: first, that communion is to be received only once in the day (n. 129), then, that it is to be received at least once in the year. Within these limits she indeed commands nothing, but nevertheless she shows in every way that she greatly desires the faithful to approach sacred communion frequently, indeed even daily.

a. The Council of Trent desires "that in individual Masses the faithful present communicate not only by spiritual affection, but also by sacramental reception of the Eucharist";² and the Roman Catechism, edited by order of the Council of Trent, admonishes pastors to exhort the faithful often to receiving holy communion frequently.³ Hence it happened that the acts of the provincial council of Rouen, which decreed that in the future holy communion would be distributed only twice in the week, were reprobated at Rome, with this admonition added: it is opposed by the Council of Trent.

b. The very celebrated decree of Innocent XI, Cum ad aures (12 Feb. 1679), exhibits the Church's manner of thinking and speaking concerning this matter, so that Benedict XIV declared: if in a synod speech is instituted concerning the frequent or even daily use of the holy Eucharist, one must not depart from the path of this decree. Now this decree contains especially three things: alpha. it reprobates the prohibition of frequent communion made in some dioceses because of abuses which had crept in from daily communion; beta. it decrees that neither the state of merchants nor the conjugal state impedes frequent communion, which depends solely on the disposition of the soul; gamma. it establishes that judgment concerning the interior disposition, and therefore concerning the frequency of communion in a particular case, is to be left to the confessor.

c. Most clearly the Church opened her mind concerning frequent communion by the solemn decree Sacra tridentina synodus, issued by Pius X (20 Dec. 1905), by which not only frequent and daily communion is earnestly commended, but also easier conditions for receiving it are determined.

d. The Church draws this manner of thinking and acting from the words of Christ, who not obscurely manifests the desire that the faithful often eat the eucharistic bread,⁴ and from the end and effects of the Eucharist, concerning which St. Thomas argues thus: this sacrament is spiritual food; hence, as bodily food is taken daily, so it is laudable to receive this sacrament daily.⁵

Note. Therefore there act against the mind of the Church not only priests who indiscriminately deny frequent communion to all the faithful for this reason alone, that it is frequent, and pastors who neither distribute holy communion nor permit it to be distributed except on Sundays and feasts; but also confessors who, in the Jansenist manner, require for frequent communion such great purity of soul that they judge scarcely any penitent worthy of frequent communion. These are led by a false principle, namely that holy communion is the prize and reward of acquired virtue, whereas rather it is the means of acquiring virtue.

¹ Cf. Lugo, De eucharistia, disp. 17; Dalgairns, Die heilige Kommunion; ihre Philosophie, Theologie und Praxis (Mainz, Kirchheim, 1862); Segur, Die wochentliche Kommunion (Mainz, Kirchheim, 1880); Bastien, De frequenti quotidianaque communione (Rome, Desclee, 1907).

² Sess. 22, c. 6; sess. 13, c. 8. Cn. 863 agrees.

³ Pars II, c. 4, q. 58.

⁴ John 6:59.

⁵ Summa III, q. 80, a. 10, ad 1.

159. Required dispositions. 1. As to the required dispositions, all demand the state of grace; but concerning further disposition theologians disputed. Some demanded a greater purity of soul and actual devotion; others, on the contrary, thought that the state of grace suffices, while immunity from venial sins and actual devotion are indeed greatly to be desired, but are not required as necessary conditions.

2. The former opinion, which de Lugo especially defends,¹ and to which St. Alphonsus also adheres,² up to now had by far the greater part of theologians as patrons; few defended the second. Therefore also the practice which up to now was observed in the Church concerning frequent and daily communion was directed according to the norm of the former opinion.

a. They taught that a twofold disposition is required for frequent communion: that affection toward deliberate venial sins be removed, so that therefore they are at least not ordinarily committed; that a serious effort be employed for advancing in virtues and perfection; and that the greater the frequency of communion was, the more perfect this disposition ought to be. Wherefore, in order that someone be worthy of daily communion, they demanded that deliberate venial sin happen rarely, or that depraved inclinations for the most part already be overcome, and that there be present a serious effort of advancing in the way of perfection. From these points they inferred that daily communion must be denied to many and conceded to few.

b. This is their chief reason. The reverence due to Christ the Lord demands that those who communicate frequently do this only with great purity of soul and actual devotion, although from this many must lack the spiritual benefit received from frequent communion; just as, because of the same reverence of the sacrament, holy communion is not given to infants, although grace would be increased in them ex opere operato.

¹ De euchar., disp. 17.

² Praxis confessarii, n. 152.

160. 3. Now, however, the Holy See declares: for frequent, indeed even daily, communion no other disposition is required except that someone be in the state of grace and approach the sacred table with a right mind. Hence it is not only not licit to keep away from frequent and daily communion anyone who is endowed with this disposition, but the faithful are rather to be exhorted to it; especially in religious institutes of whatever kind, frequent and daily communion is to be promoted, with this disposition supposed.¹

a. The state of grace, according to the mind of the decree, is not required as habitual, which excludes relapses into mortal sin, but actual suffices, which consists in the simple existence of sanctifying grace, yet with a firm purpose of not committing mortal sin and a serious will of avoiding occasions and dangers. Therefore nothing prevents a penitent who is now first converted from a looser life from being admitted to frequent communion, provided a true and serious will of amending himself appears. Although, according to the mind of the Church, the state of grace suffices for frequent communion, nevertheless the cited decree admonishes and exhorts that, for receiving greater fruits, greater dispositions also be placed beforehand according to each one's strength and condition.

b. A right mind consists in this: that he who approaches the sacred table does not indulge habit or vanity or human reasons, but wishes to satisfy the good pleasure of God, to be joined to Him more closely by charity, and by that divine medicine to meet his infirmities and defects. He who follows the practice of others only because others do it, or pursues a practice long ago undertaken by himself without due reverence, acts badly; but he who follows the good example of others in this matter, or with due intention and reverence pursues a practice long ago begun by himself, does not act badly. If the pursuit of vain glory is the sole motive for approaching, the approach is morally bad; but if it is a partial motive, the approach is partly good and partly bad. The same is to be said of human reasons.

c. The faithful who are about to receive holy communion frequently or even daily should seek the counsel of a confessor. In order that his counsel be prudent, he, who must follow the norms of the cited decree in all things, should advert: alpha. that what before was designated as the necessary disposition of frequent communion is now rather the end to be intended and the fruit to be gathered from daily communion. "Although it is most expedient" - these are the words of the cited decree - "that those using frequent and daily communion be free from venial sins, at least fully deliberate ones, and from affection toward them, nevertheless it suffices that they be free from mortal faults, with the purpose of never sinning in the future; with which sincere purpose of soul it cannot happen that those communicating daily are not gradually freed from venial sins also and from affection toward them." beta. In order that this effect be obtained, "care must be taken" - again these are the words of the decree - "that careful preparation for holy communion precede, and suitable thanksgiving follow thereafter, according to each one's strength, condition, and duties."

d. The reasons for this doctrine and practice are taken: alpha. From the ancient practice of the Church: for it can scarcely be denied that in the first times of the Church the faithful indiscriminately received holy communion frequently, indeed even daily, and yet in general they were not better and more perfect than the faithful of our time. beta. From the spiritual good of the faithful: as often as a man in the state of grace approaches holy communion, he at least partially receives its fruit ex opere operato, although he commits venial sins; and indeed a fruit of supreme value, namely an increase of sanctifying grace and charity; but a frequent and daily increase of grace and charity causes venial sins and imperfections gradually to be amended. gamma. From the principle: the sacraments are for the sake of men: for from this it must be inferred that Christ the Lord prefers the greater spiritual utility of the faithful to a more perfect disposition, and therefore for daily communion requires nothing else except that the communicant be in the state of grace and approach with a right mind. This opinion, which was that of the holy Fathers, the Church confirms by a recent decree.

e. Therefore frequent communion is not to be denied to those who sometimes fall into mortal sin, provided they detest it and seriously propose to amend; nor is it to be denied to those who have affection toward deliberate venial sins. But it must be denied to those who have affection toward mortal sins and therefore frequently fall into mortal sins; nevertheless those are to be excepted who fall from internal fragility or from vehement and extraordinary temptation and show a serious will of fighting against sin: for from frequent communion these draw greater strength for resisting temptations.²

4. In order that the use of daily communion might be propagated more day by day, to those who have the custom of communicating daily there has been conceded the privilege of gaining, without weekly confession, all indulgences for the gaining of which confession would be necessary.

To those who are accustomed to confess at least twice in the month, unless they are legitimately impeded, there has been conceded the privilege of gaining all occurring indulgences, for the gaining of which confession is prescribed (except the indulgences of the ordinary and extraordinary jubilee); the same privilege is conceded to those who have the practice of daily or quasi-daily communion without the obligation of confessing every week. Therefore they do not lose this privilege who abstain from communion once or twice during the week.³

5. Boys and girls are not to be kept away from frequent communion; indeed daily communion should be recommended to them already after they have received first communion, especially to those who are educated in boys' seminaries and other boarding schools, so that they may be imbued with Christ and His grace before passions arise in their hearts and begin to dominate.⁴

Nevertheless care must be taken: a. lest superiors, unless cautiously, tell someone in particular to approach holy communion more frequently, lest they foster hypocrisy and give occasion to sacrileges; b. lest boys and girls approach from mere habit, distracted and dissipated: for, given the lightness of childish age, there is danger lest the sacred food become cheap to them from daily use.⁵

¹ S. C. C., Sacra tridentina synodus, 20 Dec. 1905.

² Cf. Frassinetti, Compendio della teolog. morale, 9th ed. (Genova, Fassicomo, 1898), Dissertation X; M. C. Gennari, Sulla communione frequente, 2nd ed. (Napoli, Tipogr. degli artigian., 1900).

³ Cn. 931, 3; S. C. Indl., 14 Feb. 1906.

⁴ S. C. C., 15 Sept. 1906.

⁵ Cf. S. C. C., 10 Dec. 1905.

161. For practice. 1. Pastors and confessors should esteem frequent communion greatly, as a practice praised and commended by the Church, and should earnestly exhort the faithful to it. For the Church commands this, because frequent and even daily communion is strongly commended to the Christian faithful by the Lord Himself because of its excellent fruits.¹

2. Although great zeal in commending frequent and daily communion is rightly to be praised, nevertheless let them remember that one must never depart from the norm of prudence and truth. Hence:

a. In extolling the frequency of communion, let them not speak in such a way that they confuse counsel with precept. Annual communion is prescribed to all; more frequent communion to some (the young, habitual sinners), but daily communion, indeed frequent communion generally, is only commended.

b. At the same time let them inculcate the necessity of due preparation and thanksgiving, which also before and after daily communion must certainly be arranged according to the strength, opportunity, duties, and state of the communicants. For the rest, it is not necessary that the whole preparation and thanksgiving take place in the church itself, just as it is not necessary that the faithful, e.g., workers and students, use different clothing for communicating than they use on weekdays.

c. Let confessors see whether frequent and daily communion can be received by penitents without detriment to the obligations of state in servants, maidservants, mothers of families, etc., or without the loss of greater goods, such as peace and tranquility in families for wives, etc.

d. Where up to now not even monthly, bimonthly, or quarterly communion was in use, the pastor should first of all devote every effort to this, that the people approach the sacred table every month, without however being silent about more frequent, indeed daily, communion. For in every parish there are found faithful inclined to true piety and to a more frequent use of the sacraments. These, if they are suitably directed by a zealous and prudent confessor, can induce others to more frequent communion.

3. Unless duties of state or greater goods to be preserved stand in the way, the pastor and confessor must admit to frequent and daily communion all who are in the state of grace and intend to acquire for themselves the fruits of communion, whether they are women or men, unmarried or joined in matrimony, adults or children. Nor is he immune from sin who, when the required conditions are supposed, withdraws anyone from frequent communion or denies it to him.

4. If there is question of children whose parents are displeased by frequent communion in their children, the priest should exhort them to ask from their parents permission to communicate frequently and, if there is need, to obtain it for themselves by obedience, good morals, diligence, kindness, etc. Let the confessor continually exhort and instruct the same children to approach devoutly and to make preparation and thanksgiving well. Similarly, let wives see to it that, with their husbands consenting, they can communicate frequently.

5. Although weekly confession ordinarily seems to be recommended for those communicating frequently, nevertheless not rarely circumstances will be present which suggest less frequent confession. Such are, for example, lack of time either on the part of the confessor or on the part of the penitent; the danger lest access to confession be made more difficult for those who most need it. Hence it can licitly happen that those communicating frequently or daily confess only every month. For pastors of souls should remember that a greater spiritual good is received from holy communion than from sacramental confession. Therefore, where both cannot be joined, it is better to omit confession rather than communion.

¹ Cf. S. C. C., 10 Dec. 1905.

Besides having sufficient knowledge of what the Eucharist is, he who receives it should be in the state of grace and free from mortal sin. The presence in the soul of venial sin unrepented of is indeed a defect and an obstacle to the fullest outpouring of God’s grace, but it is not a new sin to receive Holy Communion with only venial sins on the soul. But it is a grievous sacrilege to receive the Eucharist while conscious of being in mortal sin, “‘ For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgement to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.” It is not sufficient for one who is conscious of mortal sin to recover the state of grace by making an act of perfect contrition before Communion; he is bound to go to confession. This is taught us by the Council of Trent:¹ ‘‘ Wherefore he who would communicate ought to recall to mind the precept of the Apostle, Let a man prove himself. Now ecclesiastical usage declares that necessary proof to be, that no one conscious to himself of mortal sin, how contrite soever he may seem to himself, ought to approach to the sacred Eucharist without previous sacramental confession. This, the Holy Synod hath decreed, is to be invariably observed by all Christians, even by those priests on whom it may be incumbent by their office to celebrate, provided the opportunity of a confessor do not fail them; but if in an urgent necessity a priest should celebrate without previous confession, let him confess as soon as possible.” No one, then, who is conscious of mortal sin may go to Holy Communion without sacramental confession, unless he is under some necessity of receiving the Eucharist and there is no opportunity of going to confession.

There will be such necessity as is here contemplated if a priest has to say Mass for his people on a day of obligation, or to consecrate the Viaticum for a dying person, or if Communion must be received to avoid scandal or to satisfy the Easter precept. There is no opportunity of going to confession if there is no priest present who can give absolution, and it would be a serious inconvenience to go to one at a distance. Even when in these circumstances a priest who is in sin has said Mass with contrition indeed, but without confession, he is commanded by the Council of Trent to go to confession as soon as possible afterward. This is a strict ecclesiastical law, but according to the mind of the Council it only binds priests, not laymen (Can. 807, 856).

¹ Sess. xiii, c. 7.

When one has been to confession with a view to going to Holy Communion, but forgot to mention some grievous sin which he afterward remembers, he is not obliged to repeat his confession before Communion; it will be sufficient if he mentions it in his next confession. The reason is because the forgotten sin was indirectly forgiven by the absolution which he received, and he has proved himself sufficiently according to the words of the Apostle.

Even if there be not sufficient time to make a full confession before Communion, still confession is obligatory, as it is also when the penitent has reserved cases, for now in case of necessity any confessor may absolve directly from reserved cases.

Although God looks to the soul and its dispositions rather than to externals, yet, as the Ritual says, those who communicate should approach the altar with humble deportment, and their dress and everything about them should show forth the reverence which they feel for the Blessed Sacrament. Reverence taught the first Christians that the holy Eucharist should be the first food taken in the day, so that fasting Communion very soon came to be a universal practice in the Church. St Augustine says that it was the custom throughout the whole world in his time, and he traces it back to the times of the Apostles.¹ The Council of Constance says: “This present council declares, decrees, and defines, that although Christ instituted and gave this venerable sacrament to his disciples under both species of bread and wine after supper, yet notwithstanding, the laudable authority of the sacred canons and the approved custom of the Church has and keeps this observance that this sacrament ought not to be consecrated after supper nor received by the faithful unless they be fasting, except in case of sickness or of some other necessity allowed and admitted by law and by the Church.”² The rubrics of the Missal³ contain the following: “ If anyone has not kept fast after midnight, though he has taken only water or other drink or food, even as medicine, and in however small a quantity, he cannot communicate or celebrate. If remnants of food remaining in the mouth are swallowed, they do not hinder Communion, since they are not taken as food, but with the saliva. The same holds good if in washing the mouth a drop of water is swallowed inadvertently ” (cf. Can. 858).

The law of the Church, then, with reference to fasting Communion is that the Eucharist may not be received by one who has not kept strict fast from all food and drink, even in the smallest quantity, since midnight. If Holy Communion is received shortly after midnight, there is no obligation to fast for some time before midnight, although reverence would dictate the advisability of such a course. The law of fasting has been made out of reverence for the Blessed Sacrament, so that violations of it are against the virtue of religion and sacrilegious.

To constitute a violation of the fast, what is taken must be of the nature of food or drink. Pebbles, wood, paper, hairs are not food, and if swallowed do not hinder Communion. The same is probably to be said of bits of the nails of the fingers, which some people have a habit of biting. The food or drink must also be taken as food or drink, not per modum respirationis, as is said, and must be from without, not from within the mouth. Taking snuff, or smoking, or inhaling a flake of snaw with the breath, do not, then, hinder Communion, nor the swallowing of blood from the gums or from inside the lips.

Midnight may be reckoned according to the time publicly observed in the place, or by the true time according to the sun, or by the mean time.

¹ Decretum Gratiani, c. 54, D. 2, de consec.

² Sess. xiii.

³ De def. ix.

The law which prescribes fasting Communion is a positive ecclesiastical law and admits of exception and excuse. Thus, when in danger of death, from whatever cause, one may receive Holy Communion not fasting. This may also be done if it is not possible to abstain from Communion without grave scandal or serious loss of reputation; or when the Blessed Sacrament is in danger of being profaned; or in order to complete the sacrifice of the Mass left unfinished by another priest from sudden illness; or probably in order to consecrate the Viaticum for a dying person who otherwise would be deprived of it. The common opinion is that Mass may not be said by a priest not fasting merely in order that his people may hear Mass on a Sunday; but this reason, taken together with some other, might justify the action.

There used to be a controversy among divines as to whether one who is sick but not in danger of death, and yet cannot observe the fast before Communion, may be allowed sometimes to communicate not fasting. This controversy has been set at rest by the decree of Pius X, December 7, 1906, and by Canon 858, sec. 2. The law now allows those who have been sick in bed for a month, without a well-grounded hope of their speedy recovery, although they may have taken something by way of drink or medicine, to receive with the advice of their confessor Holy Communion once or twice in the week.

After receiving Viaticum a sick person who continues to live for some time afterward may receive Holy Communion again, practically as often as his devotion urges him thereto and the priest’s occupations will allow of its being brought to him. As long as he remains in danger of death, Holy Communion should be given as Viaticum, with the form, Accipe frater. No merely material uncleanness without moral fault, or mere bodily unsightliness, is a bar to Holy Communion, Married people are advised to abstain from marital intercourse before going to Holy Communion, but there is no strict obligation to do so.

Viaticum should be given to children in danger of death if they can distinguish it from ordinary food and pay it reverent adoration (Can. 854, sec. 2).

I. The state of grace. That the state of grace is required is clear from Sacred Scripture,¹ and from what was said about the sacraments in general, n. 43. In the same place it was likewise proved that broad moral certitude about the state of grace is required.

1. One who is conscious to himself of mortal sin is bound per se to recover lost grace through Confession. Per accidens he sometimes satisfies by an act of contrition, as will be explained under 4. That Confession is required per se is clear from the Council of Trent: "One who wishes to communicate must recall to memory that precept of his, that is, of the Apostle: Let a man prove himself. But ecclesiastical custom declares that this proof is necessary, so that no one conscious to himself of mortal sin, however much he may seem to himself contrite, ought to approach the Holy Eucharist without previous sacramental Confession. This holy Synod has decreed that this must perpetually be observed by all Christians, even by those priests upon whom, by office, it is incumbent to celebrate, provided that a supply of a confessor is not lacking to them."² Canons 807 and 856 are added.

It is disputed, however, whether the precept of premising Confession is divine or ecclesiastical; likewise, if it is ecclesiastical, whether it was imposed by Paul or introduced by custom. Concerning this, note: 1. nothing can be deduced from the cited place of Trent, since from the history³ and acts⁴ of the Council it is clear that the Fathers adhered to different opinions and did not intend to reject any one. 2. It is difficult to admit that an obligation of this kind was imposed by Paul upon the whole Church, unless it is positively proved; but a solid argument is lacking. Hence the said precept seems either to be divine or to have been introduced by ecclesiastical custom; which is to be preferred, I do not know.

Nor should you object: According to Trent, ecclesiastical custom declares that the proof of which Paul speaks is placed in Confession; therefore custom did not introduce the obligation of confessing. Response: According to Trent, ecclesiastical custom does not declare that the proof of which Paul speaks is placed in Confession, but that proof through Confession is necessary; by this it is left undecided whether such proof was introduced by Christ, by Paul, or by ancient custom.

2. One who, all things considered, doubts whether after his last Confession he sinned gravely, is not bound to confess, but satisfies by an act of contrition. For the Council of Trent speaks only of one who is conscious of mortal sin; this cannot be said of one who doubts (St. Alphonsus, VI, 473). Nevertheless, if he does not confess, that he is bound to an act of contrition was proved in the treatise on the sacraments in general (n. 43). I said all things considered, because Confession is prescribed if from the circumstances it must be presumed that a grave sin was committed (De Sacramentis in genere, loc. cit.).

It is disputed whether before Communion one must confess again who, all things considered, doubts whether he has worthily confessed the sin committed. But according to the principles of St. Alphonsus it must be affirmed, because he doubtfully satisfied the law of worthy Confession. Nevertheless I again said all things considered; for if the doubt arises from doubt about the mode in which the Confession was made, for example whether it was instituted with true attrition or not, it can be presumed that it was rightly made (vol. I, n. 229).

3. One who confessed worthily, but forgot a mortal sin, with sufficient probability is not bound to confess again before he communicates. Most older theologians reject this doctrine, because the Council of Trent, which binds one who is conscious to himself of mortal sin to previous Confession, in the obvious sense speaks of the Confession of all mortal sins of which he is conscious to himself before Communion. But St. Alphonsus (VI, 257), and after him almost all more recent authors, hold as sufficiently probable that only a worthy previous Confession is prescribed, in other words, that it suffices that someone has been justified through Confession, or that sins have been remitted through Confession, whether directly, or, as in the case of a sin omitted through forgetfulness, indirectly. Considering the not-to-be-despised explanation of the Council of Trent and the authority of the authors, we hold this opinion as safe in practice.

4. One who per se is bound to Confession, per accidens is not bound to it, but satisfies by an act of perfect contrition, if both there is a necessity of communicating or celebrating, and the supply of a confessor is lacking (canons 807, 856).

a) The necessity of celebrating or communicating is understood as grave or urgent, as the Council of Trent, loc. cit., and the Code (cited canons) have it. Necessity is present:

First, if Communion or Mass cannot be omitted without infamy or scandal, as if a layperson has already approached the Communion rail; if a priest has already begun Mass, or has arrived at the altar, or is eagerly awaited by the faithful (St. Alphonsus, VI, 260). Necessity also seems to be present if someone, for example, goes to church with his family intending to communicate and is not absolved. As regards those who in colleges, etc., communicate daily, infamy does not seem to be a sufficient reason, nor one to be admitted by the confessor, because either they rarely sin, and then they can more easily allege another motive, for example a broken fast; or they sin more often, and then they are bound to arrange their Communions so that they are no longer known to communicate daily. Therefore the obligation of Confession is also to be urged more, especially in younger persons, lest the reverence due to the Eucharist be diminished, the horror of sin be lost, and the efforts to root out a depraved habit be lessened.⁵

Second, if Mass must be continued; namely: 1. if the consecration has already begun, the priest should not interrupt Mass in order to confess, but, having elicited an act of contrition, should continue it. 2. If the consecration has not yet begun, the same seems to be said of a priest who remembers a grave sin or becomes guilty of one, since the Missal states without distinction: "If in the very celebration of Mass the priest remembers that he is in mortal sin, let him be contrite with the purpose of confessing and satisfying."⁶ But the priest who "remembers that he is excommunicated or suspended, or that the place is interdicted... if scandal is not feared, ought to leave the Mass already begun."⁷ The reason of scandal, or infamy, will commonly excuse from leaving Mass, so that Mass should rather be continued, after an act of contrition has been elicited.

Third, if Viaticum must be consecrated for a dying person and another who may celebrate is lacking. Likewise if there is danger that the sacrament may be profaned and that danger cannot be averted in another equally safe way (St. Alphonsus, VI, 260).

Fourth, if there is, whether for a pastor or for an assistant, an obligation of celebrating by office, for example on a feast day so that the people may hear Mass, for funerals, or for blessing nuptials, and another who may celebrate in his place is lacking (St. Alphonsus, VI, 261). But there is not a necessity of celebrating or communicating which of itself is sufficiently grave if the priest suffers from the omission of Mass only the privation of the stipend; likewise if he must celebrate only from a vow, or from the precept of a superior, or so that he himself may hear Mass of precept, or so that another may satisfy the precept of Easter Communion. But with sufficient probability a necessity of celebrating per se sufficiently grave is present if otherwise the priest himself cannot satisfy the precept of Easter Communion; likewise, for a layperson, a necessity of communicating per se sufficiently grave is had if otherwise he cannot fulfill the precept of Easter Communion. The reason is that annual Communion obliges in some way from divine law (St. Alphonsus, VI, 261).

b) The supply of a confessor is lacking:

First, if no one is present who can, and licitly can, and wills to hear Confession, and another cannot be approached without grave difficulty. But the difficulty which arises from the journey to be made can be increased on the one hand by infirmity, by the imminent time of celebrating, etc., and on the other hand lessened by the fact that the journey can be made by carriage, railway, etc. Abstracting from the aforesaid special circumstances, according to St. Alphonsus a journey of one and a half leagues excuses (VI, 264). Therefore the supply of a confessor is not lacking because the ordinary confessor cannot be had.

It is disputed whether or not the supply of a confessor is lacking if only a confessor is present, or can be approached, to whom someone cannot confess without extraordinary shame arising from an extraordinary circumstance; for example, if an uncle would have to confess a very shameful sin to his nephew. Some affirm, but it seems it must be entirely denied. For: 1. an intrinsic inconvenience does not excuse from law (De Legibus, vol. I, n. 169). But that extraordinary circumstance only causes the intrinsic inconvenience, namely shame, to become greater, not to become extrinsic. There is added that the more benign opinion gives occasion to laxity and weakens the law, since limits cannot be assigned. Finally, the aforesaid opinion was formerly commonly rejected, either explicitly or implicitly.

Objection. The law of premising Confession to Communion is probably only ecclesiastical. Hence it is permitted, at least by epikeia, to regard extraordinary shame as an excusing cause.

Response. Passing over the antecedent, I observe that the two latter arguments adduced by us also exclude epikeia.

Second, if no one is present except one ignorant of the language, or lacking jurisdiction, or an excommunicated person to be avoided. Concerning the case in which someone has fallen into a reserved sin and the priest present per se lacks jurisdiction over it, see the treatise on Penance.

Third, if someone cannot confess to a confessor who is present or can be approached without grave harm extrinsic to Confession; harm, I say, whether to himself, to the confessor, or to a third party, as is more fully explained in the treatise on Penance (St. Alphonsus, VI, 264).

¹ 1 Cor. 11:29.

² Session 13, chapter 7.

³ Pallavicini, cited work, book 12, chapter 2.

⁴ Theiner, cited work, vol. I, p. 488 and following.

⁵ Cf. Vermeersch, Epitome, 3rd ed., vol. II, n. 120.

⁶ On Defects, VIII, n. 4.

⁷ Roman Missal, loc. cit., n. 5.

II. Actual devotion. Although a voluntary defect of this devotion does not simply prevent the fruit of Communion, it nevertheless causes one to receive much slighter fruits. Moreover, one who at the time of Communion is voluntarily distracted commits a venial sin of irreverence. Likewise he also seems to commit a venial sin of irreverence who communicates either from a venially evil motive, for example from vainglory, or with an actual or virtual affection for venial sin. In such a case there seems to be a certain positive irreverence. It must be said otherwise of one who communicates with habitual venial sin, because there is rather a defect of perfect reverence than positive irreverence (St. Alphonsus, VI, 270).

Corollary I. Nocturnal pollution, in relation to Communion to be received on the following day, is to be judged thus: It never prohibits it under grave sin, provided the grave sin perhaps committed has been removed by Confession. For the rest:

1. If it occurred with grave sin, although remitted by Confession, "one should abstain from Communion and celebration unless something else seems good to the confessor."¹

2. If it occurred with venial sin or without sin, Communion is prohibited under venial sin by reason of the effects, namely if because of dishonorable fantasies it obstructs the required devotion. Yet it is prohibited only insofar as either one must abstain from Communion, or effort must be applied to removing the impediment² (St. Alphonsus, VI, 272).

Corollary II. Conjugal intercourse practically does not impede Communion; nor, for the most part, should spouses be positively advised to abstain from intercourse on the night before the day of Communion. To those asking, let it be said that it is licit, and at most let it be added that abstinence is a thing of greater perfection.

¹ Missal, On Defects, title IX, n. 5.

² Cf. Missal, loc. cit.

III. Preparation and thanksgiving. In order that one may receive richer fruits, he should not omit remote and proximate preparation, and thanksgiving.

1. Preparation can be distinguished as twofold: remote and proximate. Remote preparation consists especially in purity of heart; proximate preparation, in acts of faith, hope, charity, etc., and "let it be made according to the powers, conditions, and offices of each one."¹

2. Thanksgiving should likewise be carried out carefully, and not be finished in a few minutes. For the rest, it too, as the cited Decree has it, "should be made according to the powers, conditions, and offices of each one" (cf. St. Alphonsus, Praxis Confessarii, n. 155).

Corollary. To eat or drink immediately after Communion is venial, unless a reasonable cause excuses (St. Alphonsus, VI, 283). To spit immediately after it has been cast into the stomach is unbecoming; if it were done with danger of ejecting a particle, it would be a sin.

¹ Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council Sacra Tridentina Synodus, 20 December 1905.

Canon 863 admonishes that the faithful are to be stirred up to be refreshed frequently, even daily, with the Eucharistic bread, according to the norms handed down in decrees of the Apostolic See. But the norms of which the cited canon speaks are contained in the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council Sacra Tridentina Synodus,¹ and in other documents to be cited insofar as needed.

¹ 20 December 1905.

I. Requisites for daily Communion. "Frequent and daily Communion, as being most desired by Christ the Lord and by the Catholic Church, should be open to all Christ's faithful of whatever order or condition; so that no one who is in the state of grace and approaches the sacred table with a right and pious mind can be prohibited from it" (cited Decree, n. 1). "But a right mind consists in this, that one who approaches the sacred table does not indulge custom, vanity, or human reasons, but wills to satisfy God's good pleasure, to be united to Him more closely by charity, and by that divine medicine to meet his infirmities and defects" (n. 2). Now:

1. An intention which is predominantly supernatural suffices to this extent, that one who approaches with such an intention cannot be kept away from Communion.

2. It suffices that the good ends assigned be intended implicitly.

3. Custom, whether one's own or that of others, will in practice rather often be more the occasion than the principal reason. Vanity will be the principal reason if someone becomes conceited because of frequency of Communion and willingly speaks about it to others in the manner of little devotees.¹

¹ Instruction to the Bishops of Prussia, 8 December 1906.

II. The office of the confessor. 1. "In order that frequent and daily Communion may be done with greater prudence and be increased by richer merit, it is fitting that the counsel of the confessor intervene" (n. 5). Therefore the confessor, especially if he is asked, enjoys the right of judging about the state and disposition of the penitent; indeed it is entirely fitting that his counsel be sought. I said it is fitting, because it is disputed whether the word it is fitting in this case involves a true obligation. With sufficient probability it is denied, and the counsel of the confessor is declared necessary only insofar as, by seeking it, one proceeds with greater prudence and greater merit can be hoped for. In a word: the word it is fitting probably signifies only the necessity of greater prudence and greater merit. Moreover, the confessor does not grant permission to communicate daily, but only declares that the requisites for permission are present; the permission itself, or the right, is conferred by the Church or by Christ. Finally, a penitent who is certain about the required disposition is not bound to acquiesce in a confessor turning him away from daily Communion, but can use the right granted to him. But these things are merely theoretical.

2. "Let confessors nevertheless beware lest they turn anyone away from frequent or daily Communion who is found in the state of grace and approaches with a right mind" (n. 5).

Question. Whether the practice of daily Communion can finally be forbidden to one who permanently, without any amendment, falls back into venial sins.

Response. Some deny, because according to number 3 of the decree, it suffices "that those using frequent and daily Communion be free from mortal sins, with the purpose of never sinning in the future," certainly gravely. Others affirm, because the decree itself in n. 3 declares that it cannot happen "that those communicating daily should not little by little free themselves from even venial sins and from their effect." Therefore a permanent defect of amendment is a sign of a defect of right intention in the past, and it introduces a vehement prejudice for the future,¹ unless special circumstances or signs remove the said prejudice. Hence the practice of daily Communion is finally to be forbidden unless there is now hope that the penitent will approach with a right intention. To the argument of the adversaries they respond that the words opposed from number 3 of the decree regard only the required state of grace, but by no means exclude the obligation of bringing a right intention in approaching Holy Communion. Yet one who adheres to this opinion should take care not to bring it into practice too hastily; moreover, let him stir the penitent to greater fervor, and as soon as a founded hope of bringing a right intention is present, let him cease from turning him away from daily Communion.

¹ This argument, however, is weakened somewhat by responding that the quoted words, which are not judged to pertain to the doctrinal part, are not to be urged too much.

III. The office of others. 1. The faithful are to be stirred up to be refreshed frequently, even daily, with the Eucharistic bread, according to the norms handed down in the decrees of the Apostolic See; and those assisting at Mass, being duly disposed, should communicate not only by spiritual affection, but also by sacramental reception of the Most Holy Eucharist (canon 863). The cited Decree, n. 6, inculcates the same upon pastors, confessors, and preachers. Add the response of the Sacred Congregation of the Council,¹ by which it is declared that "the frequency of Holy Communion is commended according to the first article of the Decree even to children, who, once admitted to the sacred table... must not be prohibited from frequent participation in it, but rather are to be exhorted to it; with the contrary practice in force in some places being reproved."

2. Frequent and daily Communion is also to be promoted as much as possible in seminaries of clerics, whose students long for service of the altar; likewise in other Christian schools of every kind² (cited Decree, n. 7). Religious superiors should promote among their subjects the frequent, even daily, reception of the Most Holy Body of Christ; and frequent, indeed even daily, access to the Most Holy Eucharist should be freely open to religious who are rightly disposed (canon 595, § 2). As regards religious, observe besides:

a) If there are religious institutes of either solemn or simple vows in whose rules or constitutions, or even calendars, Communions are found to be assigned or ordered on certain days, these norms have only directive force (canon 595, § 4).

b) But if after the last sacramental Confession a religious has been a grave scandal to the community, or has committed a grave and external fault, the superior can prohibit him from approaching Holy Communion until he has again approached the sacrament of Penance (canon 595, § 3). The words scandal, and grave and external fault, are now to be taken at least in the theological sense. The prohibition falls away as soon as the subject has confessed.

Note. The law of reading the Decree Sacra Tridentina Synodus annually in religious houses is no longer in force (cf. canon 6, 6).

¹ 15 September 1906 (Monitore Ecclesiastico, vol. 18, p. 346).

² Under the name of schools are comprehended "all pious institutes in which boys or girls are instructed and educated" (Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. XXI, p. 506).

IV. Daily Communion is commended to all by: 1. the desire of Christ and the Church, as is more fully explained in the prior part of the cited Decree; 2. the end and fruit of Communion. Concerning this observe that its end consists especially in this, "that Christ's faithful, united to God through the sacrament, may thence take strength to restrain lust, to wash away the slight faults which occur daily, and to prevent the graver sins to which human frailty is liable; but not principally that the honor and veneration of the Lord be consulted, nor that it be, as it were, wages or a reward of their virtues for those receiving" (cited Decree).

Corollary. The practice of persuading either the faithful or the members of some community to abstain from Communion on one or another day each week must be disapproved. For this practice cannot be reconciled with the cited decree and other ecclesiastical documents, which exhort daily Communion to be brought into practice and promoted, and prohibit the confessor "from turning anyone away from frequent or daily Communion who is found in the state of grace and approaches with a right mind" (n. 5). Nor should members of a community be persuaded to abstain from daily Communion on the occasion of spiritual exercises.

The disposition of the body comprehends cleanliness of body, decency of dress, and the natural fast.

As regards cleanliness of body, it suffices to note these things:

1. Dirt adhering to the body and appearing should be washed away before the reception of the Eucharist.

2. Stains inherent in the body are commonly not attended to, unless they are apparent, notable, and removable. If there is hope that they will soon be removed, and Communion can conveniently be deferred, it is fitting to defer it. Nevertheless, a priest infected with a disease that brings horror should not celebrate publicly; he can celebrate secretly (St. Alphonsus, VI, 275).

As regards decency of dress, observe that it depends much on the custom of places and the condition of persons. For the rest:

1. So far as can be done, one should not approach in torn and dirty clothes.

2. Women should avoid superfluous ornament and especially immodest or indecent dress. One who approached too immodestly would have to be kept away from Communion; but one must proceed with the greatest prudence.

3. It is fitting that soldiers approach with arms laid aside.

4. "If Communion is to be given to priests or others from the clergy, let it be given to them kneeling at the steps of the altar, or, if it can conveniently be done, let them be distinguished from the laity within the altar rail. But let priests communicate with a stole."¹ Deacons, if they approach Holy Communion privately, do so with a stole worn transversely over the cotta.² Those who acted otherwise would sin venially (St. Alphonsus, VI, 275-276).

As regards the natural fast, several things must be noted:

¹ Roman Ritual, title IV, chapter 2, n. 4.

² Sacred Congregation of Rites, 4 July 1879, n. 3499, ad II.

I. The existence of the precept. The precept of the natural fast, introduced formerly by custom and confirmed by several councils,¹ was established by canon 858, § 1, in these words: "One who has not observed the natural fast from midnight cannot be admitted to the Most Holy Eucharist, unless danger of death urges, or there is necessity of preventing irreverence toward the sacrament." It is a precept only of ecclesiastical law (St. Alphonsus, VI, 278).

¹ Council of Hippo, year 393, canon 28; Council in Trullo, canon 29; Council of Constance, year 1415, session 13.

II. The object of the precept consists in this, that from midnight the communicant has transmitted nothing digestible and coming from outside into the stomach or another organ serving the digestion of foods, and retained it there. Therefore, in order that the natural fast be violated, it is required:

1. That something be taken after midnight. Now:

a) Midnight, according to canon 33, § 1, can be computed according to: 1. usual time; 2. local time, both true and mean; 3. legal time, both regional and other extraordinary time (vol. I, n. 167).

b) Midnight must be taken physically, not morally; but the completed hour is commonly indicated by the first stroke of the clock (St. Alphonsus, VI, 282), and sometimes by the last stroke.

Here it is customary to ask what one can do who, while eating or drinking, hears the first stroke of the clock; namely, whether someone can communicate even if he does not spit out what he has in his mouth. Several more recent authors affirm, because, they say, the Church is not judged to oblige one to such rusticity. But the Church does not oblige one to that, even if it commands: "If you swallow, it is not permitted for you to communicate." Hence if, considering the circumstances, you cannot spit out without rusticity, swallow it and abstain from Communion. Thus theoretically; for in practice it will scarcely be clear that the fast has been violated, because approved clocks will scarcely be lacking which indicate midnight somewhat later and which it is permitted to follow (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.).

What if someone passes from one place to another, in which a different time prevails; for example, someone eats at Maastricht at 11:30, then departs for Aachen and communicates there, although 11:30 at Maastricht is 12:30 at Aachen? I think he acts illicitly, because the time of the fast seems to be computed in order to the time at which Communion is received; but the time of Communion must be computed according to the time of the place in which someone communicates.

2. That something be taken which comes from outside. Hence the swallowing of saliva, or blood from the gums, or fluid flowing from a pustule which exists in the mouth, does not obstruct the fast; nor the skin of the lips, for these pertain to the interior parts of the mouth, whose extremities and curvature they are. It is otherwise if someone, for example, sucks blood from a wound on the finger, or tears flowing from the eyes. Nevertheless, it is not required that something be put into the mouth from outside after midnight, but it suffices that after midnight it be swallowed. Hence the fast is violated if someone at night puts sugar into his mouth to be dissolved and swallowed after midnight, even partly (St. Alphonsus, VI, 279).

3. That something be taken which has the character of food or drink. Certainly that which is not digestible does not pertain here (St. Alphonsus, VI, 281). Nor does that seem to pertain here which can only in some way be altered in the stomach and, according to common estimation, does not have the character of food, such as fingernails. For the rest, "it does not matter," says St. Thomas (III, q. 80, a. 8, ad 4), "whether something nourishes or does not nourish"; nor does it matter at all that the thing is taken by way of medicine.¹ Considering all these things, the following do not violate the fast, although some of the things to be enumerated, according to chemists, are not excluded from every alteration in the stomach: glass, hair, silk, wool, linen, a pebble of metal, little fruit-stones wholly cleansed, wood, straw, fingernails. The following violate it: bones, wax, chalk, metal dust, artificial silk.

4. That what is taken not be retained in the mouth, but transmitted into the stomach. If the thing taken is not passed into the stomach, there is neither eating nor drinking nor, as we suppose, nutrition. It is the same, however, whether food or drink is introduced into the stomach in a natural or artificial manner (n. 171). Considering this condition, one is not bound, unless perhaps by reason of danger, to abstain from Communion who vomits whole the food taken,² or washes the stomach by means of a tube and ejects the water. Nevertheless one should abstain from using a tube anointed with oil, because some oil will almost certainly remain. Moreover, he who is nourished by a clyster seems to violate the fast, because although foods are not received in the stomach, nevertheless nutrition takes place, so that Christ is no longer the first food of those communicating. The Holy Office,³ indeed, responded, when a priest sought the faculty of proceeding in this way: "The Most Holy Father is to be petitioned for the grace, according to the prayers"; and this grace was afterward granted by the Supreme Pontiff. But it seems to be a dispensation rather than a declaration.

¹ Roman Missal, On Defects, title IX, n. 1.

² But these things are merely theoretical, because it will not be sufficiently clear that everything has been vomited.

³ 23 April 1890.

III. Further determination of the object. Lest the ecclesiastical law smell of pharisaical superstition, certain, so to speak, exceptions are admitted. Namely, the following do not violate the fast:

1. One who by chance swallows remains of foods adhering to the teeth; this is clear from the Roman Missal.¹ The same is said with sufficient probability of one who does this voluntarily (St. Alphonsus, VI, 279).²

2. One who by chance or voluntarily inhales the smoke of foods, tobacco, incense, etc. (St. Alphonsus, VI, 280, doubt 2); likewise one who uses a medicine which sends the medicine into the bronchi under the form of vapor.

3. One who by chance or voluntarily swallows a very small quantity wholly joined with saliva, for example of water after someone has washed his mouth and spat out the water, or of the juice or very small particle of tobacco which remains inseparably mixed with the saliva when someone crushes tobacco with his teeth and spits out the phlegm. Nevertheless chewing of this kind is prohibited under venial sin because of irreverence, unless a just cause is present (St. Alphonsus, VI, 280, doubt 3).

4. One who by chance swallows a sufficiently small quantity, for example a fly, dust, snow, rain, or a little drop of blood flowing from the nose (St. Alphonsus, VI, 280, doubt 1). The fact that passage into the stomach is merely noticed does not impede Communion.

5. One who uses nasal tobacco and by chance passes something into the stomach (St. Alphonsus, VI, 280, doubt 1). For the rest, it should be advised that the use of tobacco, both nasal and smoking, be omitted before Communion, although it is not prohibited.

The reason for all these things is that the law is to be taken in a human way, lest, as we have hinted, it smell of pharisaical superstition. There is added that otherwise it would give occasion to continual anxieties.

6. Finally, sometimes an exception is had from the disposition of the liturgy, namely if an adult is baptized, "with the salt," says the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide,³ "tasted beforehand by catechumens in the conferral of Baptism, even if it seems to break the fast, nevertheless there is still no doubt that after Baptism has been received they, the adults, can be admitted to Holy Communion, indeed ought to be." Finally, the law does not regard the case in which the ablution is given to one licitly communicating, or together with the host a little water or wine, although something is swallowed before the sacred species (St. Alphonsus, VI, 288).

Corollary I. One who doubts whether he has violated the fast, in other words whether he has taken something, whether he took it after midnight, whether that which he took obstructs the fast, can communicate, because in a doubt of fact founding the law the condition of liberty is better. But in all the cases mentioned, the fact founding the law is doubtful (St. Alphonsus, VI, 282; I, 38, 39).

Corollary II. One who at night does not know what hour it is, and, without asking the hour, eats with the intention of afterward communicating, sins, because he rashly admits the danger of violating the law. Nevertheless after the fact, if the truth can no longer be investigated, it is permitted to him, the things to be posited being posited, to communicate.

¹ On Defects, title IX, n. 3.

² The Roman Missal, loc. cit., says thus: "If the remains of food remaining in the mouth are swallowed, they do not impede Communion, since they are swallowed not by way of food, but by way of saliva."

³ 13 February 1906.

IV. The gravity of the precept. The precept is grave from its whole genus, both as regards the time and as regards the thing to be taken. This is clear both from the consensus of all authors and from the ends of the precept.

"One end is mystical, namely that it may be signified that Christ is the first food of man. Other ends are that those communicating may be more disposed to devotion, and that every danger of the sacrament being vomited may be avoided; which danger indeed sometimes arises from the disordered use of food or drink. But the said ends are not obtained with sufficient certainty unless every use of food or drink before Communion is absolutely prohibited" (St. Thomas, III, q. 80, a. 8; St. Alphonsus, VI, 278).

V. The causes because of which it is permitted to communicate not fasting are:

1. Urgent danger of death (canon 858, § 1), namely such that Communion can be given by way of Viaticum; this was explained in n. 158. But danger of death exempts from the law of fasting, even if someone could observe it without inconvenience, since the cited canon speaks absolutely. And this holds as regards all, both as regards those for whom danger of death threatens from outside, for example from imminent battle or from the sentence of a judge, and as regards the gravely sick; for the canon does not distinguish.

Corollary I. A sick person constituted in danger, as long as the danger endures, can communicate as often as desired, or daily, not fasting, and this even if when healthy he had been accustomed to communicate rarely. The reason is that one constituted in danger of death is absolutely exempted from the law (St. Alphonsus, VI, 285; cf. canon 864, § 3).

Corollary II. Just as it is permitted for one constituted in danger to communicate not fasting, so also a priest can celebrate not fasting in order to give Viaticum to himself, because to celebrate is not more than to communicate. The same is permitted with sufficient probability in order to give Viaticum to another, because by divine precept, to which ecclesiastical law yields, he is bound to receive Viaticum; but the case is of little practical importance, because the Eucharist is usually reserved (St. Alphonsus, VI, 286).

2. Long infirmity. The sick, however, who have already been bedridden for a month without certain hope that they will recover soon, can, by the prudent counsel of the confessor, receive the Most Holy Eucharist once or twice a week, even if they have previously taken some medicine or something by way of drink (canon 858, § 2).¹ As regards the interpretation of this canon, observe that it seems one must incline toward the more benign side, because it concerns a favor, and one universal and granted by way of derogation from the law, not by way of dispensation. These things having been noted, I explain briefly the faculty granted. Therefore, in order that someone may enjoy the privilege, it is required:

a) That he be sick, or affected by some illness. Nevertheless it suffices that someone be worn out by old age, because old age itself is judged to be a certain infirmity.

b) That he be bedridden. Yet this must be understood so that the privilege also belongs to the sick who, as the Sacred Congregation of the Council² responded, "cannot lie in bed, or can rise from it for some hours of the day." The same seems to be said of those who, suffering from a chronic disease, according to the different condition of the disease, now lie in bed, now perform some domestic tasks, yet cannot go out without notable inconvenience. But those are excluded who can attend to domestic cares and go out conveniently enough. For the word bedridden cannot sufficiently be applied to the aforesaid. Then the more benign interpretation can give occasion to scandal and to a looser application; namely, there is fear lest gradually several persons, with necessity as a pretext, will wish to communicate not fasting.

c) That he has been bedridden for a month. Therefore the sick person cannot use the privilege before he has lain ill for a month.

d) That, after he has lain ill for a month, there is absent certain hope, that is, moral certitude, of recovery to be attained soon, for example after three or four days.

e) That one proceed by the prudent counsel of the confessor. Nevertheless, the request for counsel and the approval of the confessor are not judged to be a condition which, if neglected, would cause the sick person to sin gravely by communicating not fasting. Indeed, I think that per se there is not even an obligation of seeking counsel, although it is especially fitting, and per accidens can even be necessary, namely so that there may be sufficient certainty about the required conditions. The confessor can give counsel both within and outside Confession; for no restriction occurs in the concession of the privilege. Yet let him proceed prudently, namely by seriously inquiring whether the required conditions are present. For the rest, observe:

First, when the explained conditions have been fulfilled, the sick can use the indult even if they would be able to observe the fast, since the canon requires nothing besides the explained conditions. There is added that the stricter opinion would give occasion to anxieties. They can communicate both at home and in church; yet the latter commonly cannot be done by the bedridden.

Second, by force of the concession "they can receive the Most Holy Eucharist once or twice a week, even if they have previously taken some medicine or something by way of drink" (canon 858, § 2). Medicine can be taken even if it is solid, such as, for example, a pill. But it is required that the matter to be taken directly serve the curing of the illness, so that solid foods used to recover strength are excluded. Besides medicine it is permitted to take something by way of drink. Yet it is not required that what is taken have the character of drink, but it suffices that it be taken by way of drink, like liquid food. Therefore the response of the Holy Office³ can be applied, by which it is permitted "to take broth, coffee, milk, or another liquid food, even if some substance has been mixed into it, for example light little pills of flour (semolino), grated bread reduced to crumbs (pangratto), a diluted egg, etc., provided the mixture does not lose the nature of liquid food." Chocolate can be added, but not sugar or solid chocolate, not even when they are not swallowed except after they have been dissolved in the mouth; for it is clear that the taking which occurs by mouth must be considered. Moreover, the sick person can also take some medicine or something by way of drink several times before Communion.

Third, nothing prevents one who can use the explained privilege and therefore communicates not fasting twice in a week from receiving Communion also on other days, after accepting the burden of the fast.

Question. Whether Easter Communion to be received excuses from the law of fasting in the case in which someone otherwise would be deprived of it, because on the one hand he cannot observe the fast without very grave inconvenience even if Communion were given very early, and on the other hand he cannot use the indult of which we have spoken.

Now several think this must be denied, because canon 858, § 1 declares that the fast must be observed unless danger of death urges, or the necessity of preventing irreverence toward the sacrament. But the cited canon cannot be so urged that other cases, for example infamy and scandal to be avoided, are excluded.⁴ Whether our case truly ought to be excluded is theoretically doubtful to me; but, with the doubt posited, in practice one can stand for the spiritual good of the person about to communicate and for the somewhat divine law of annual Communion, while the ecclesiastical law of the natural fast is set aside. Nevertheless scandal and abuses must be guarded against. Moreover, if the difficulty would vanish by deferring Communion, let the delay be made. Finally, in the proposed case it would also be permitted to minister the Holy Eucharist at night (canon 867, § 4).

3. Scandal, that is, the sin of one's neighbor, to be avoided; for example if Mass cannot be omitted without the danger of rash judgments or backbiting; likewise without the danger that several persons will omit, with grave sin, to assist at another Mass. Observe, however, that the sole reason that the people on a feast day would lack Mass does not suffice. Nevertheless it suffices with sufficient probability that otherwise a dying person could not receive Viaticum (St. Alphonsus, VI, 286, 287). To avoiding scandal there is often added:

4. Infamy to be avoided. This reason is present if the priest is already at the altar, unless he is of known probity (St. Alphonsus, VI, 287); likewise if a layperson is already sitting at the Communion rail.

5. Irreverence toward the Most Holy Sacrament to be guarded against (canon 858, § 1), as if there is danger that the species may perish or be profaned.

6. The sacrifice to be completed. This reason can be present in three cases, namely: 1. if after the consecration the priest remembers that he is not fasting, he must continue Mass. 2. If after the consuming of the host or chalice he notices that the matter is invalid, he must consecrate and communicate again.⁵ 3. If after the consecration, even of bread alone, the priest dies or faints, and no fasting priest is present, a priest who is not fasting must complete the Mass from the place where the prior one stopped.⁶

Finally, partly because of moral union with the completed sacrifice, partly because of irreverence toward the sacrament to be avoided, it is permitted for one not fasting to consume particles of the consecrated species, as is explained in n. 274.

¹ Cf. Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, 7 December 1906.

² 6 March 1907.

³ 7 September 1897.

⁴ The same once had to be said about ecclesiastical documents brought forward by adversaries, namely the Council of Constance, session 13, and the Constitution of Benedict XIV Quadam de more, 24 March 1756.

⁵ Roman Missal, On Defects, title III, n. 5 and title IV, n. 5.

⁶ Roman Missal, On Defects, title X, n. 3.

VI. Dispensation, which can be obtained from the Holy See, and is granted through the Sacred Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments if it concerns seculars, and through the Sacred Congregation of Religious if it concerns religious.¹ Moreover, Nuncios, Internuncios, and Apostolic Delegates can concede to the bedridden of whom canon 858, § 2 speaks that even before the end of the month they may communicate once a week, without observing the fast according to the norm of the cited canon. They can grant the same to sick persons not bedridden who labor under such a disease that, in the judgment of a physician, they cannot observe the fast without danger. Finally, the faculties of the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide grant to bishops, vicars, and prefects apostolic the power "of granting to bedridden sick persons about whom there is no certain hope that they will recover soon, even before the end of the month from which they have been bedridden, that they may receive Holy Communion two or three times a week, and, if it concerns priests or religious, even daily, without observing the fast, that is, even if they have previously taken some medicine or something by way of drink."²

¹ Thus the meeting of Cardinals, 7 December 1922 (cf. Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1929, p. 39).

² Vermeersch, Commentarius de Formulis faciendis, n. 57.

VII. Epikeia is also admitted in this matter, but with the greatest difficulty, so that scarcely a case occurs in which Communion can be received by one not fasting from epikeia alone. It is disputed whether the case would be present if a newly ordained priest about to celebrate his first Mass had broken the fast, and very grave inconveniences would follow, considering the circumstances, if the Mass were not celebrated. In such a case, the reason of avoiding infamy will not easily be present, because such a man will rather be ridiculous than infamous. Sometimes the reason of scandal will not be entirely lacking. Observe, however, "that scandal is then said to exist when an occasion is given for detracting or judging rashly, but not when an occasion of mere wonder is given" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 257).

Frequent Communion.—What dispositions are required for frequent Communion (i.e., Communion made several times a week) and daily communion?

(a) The necessary dispositions are the same as for rare Communion, namely, the state of grace and a right intention. Right intention means positively that one have in view the ends that Christ intended when He instituted the Sacrament, namely, that by means of Communion one may please Him, may be more closely united to Him, and may receive a remedy for one’s defects and infirmities. Those who receive devoutly have these purposes at least implicitly, which suffices; but it would be a serious sin wilfully to exclude all these ends. Right intention means negatively that one must not frequent Communion merely from routine, or from vanity, or from purely human motives, such as pecuniary profit or advantage. If the true ends are not excluded, these improper motives do not exceed a venial sin.

(b) Useful, but not necessary, dispositions are freedom from venial sins, especially such as are deliberate, and freedom from affection for venial sins.

324. Principles. - I. For receiving the Sacrament of the Eucharist there is required the state of grace, at least prudently judged to be present. Otherwise a most grave sacrilege is committed. The reason is clear from the nature of the thing, and also from the words of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 11:28: But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of that Bread and drink of the Chalice. For he who eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.

II. It is not sufficient that the state of grace be acquired by perfect contrition, but it is required that confession of mortal sins be premised and sacramental absolution be received, except in a case of necessity, namely either when there is lacking the supply of a Confessor, and Communion cannot be omitted without grave note or suspicion, or when a Priest must celebrate so that the people may assist at Mass on a feast day. - Trent, sess. 13, c. 7. - See St. Ligorius, n. 256 and following.

325. Questions. - QUESTION 1. When is the supply of a Confessor considered lacking?

Resp. It is considered lacking: 1. If no Confessor is present, and, the circumstances of weakness, age, business, distance, air, shortness of time, etc., having been considered, an absent one cannot be approached without grave difficulty.

2. If otherwise no Confessor is present except one ignorant of the language, or lacking jurisdiction, or one to whom you cannot confess without grave harm to yourself or another. Yet in these cases perfect contrition is required. But the supply of a Confessor is not considered lacking if the one to whom you are accustomed to confess is absent, but any approved one must be lacking. - St. Ligorius, n. 264.

But a cause excusing from confession for laymen occurs most rarely. Indeed it can more easily be present with respect to Priests; but they must certainly beware lest, deterred by a vain pretext or by shame and embarrassment, they imagine for themselves a chimerical impossibility.

QUESTION 2. What distance is required for the Priest to be considered lacking?

Resp. It cannot be rigorously determined, but depends on circumstances. Some require a distance of two leagues; others one league and a half or a quarter; others one league only. But besides the account of the journey, other reasons often press, for example infirmity or shortness of time. Thus a priest already about to celebrate can be excused from confession, even if the Confessor is 50 paces distant. - St. Ligorius, n. 264.

326. • QUESTION 3. Whether one who remembers a mortal sin which through inculpable forgetfulness he did not declare in confession is bound to confess it before Communion?

Resp. 1. Certainly no, if the penitent is already sitting at the sacred table, or there is present a grave cause of communicating, and he can confess again only with difficulty. The reason is that even if the precept of confession were present, it would not urge with so great an inconvenience. - Thus all.

Resp. 2. If the penitent can without inconvenience confess or omit Communion, it is controverted. More probably he is neither bound to confess nor to abstain from Communion, because the sin involuntarily omitted has certainly been remitted, although only indirectly; and therefore it in no way stands in the way of receiving Communion. Nor should you say that the Tridentine precept of confessing before Communion urges; for the penitent, since he has already been duly confessed and justified through the Sacrament of Penance, has been sufficiently proved even according to the mind of the Council of Trent. - St. Ligorius, n. 257, On the Eucharist. - Collet. - Pontas. - Gousset, n. 249, and others, against others who more commonly and not improbably held the opposite. - St. Ligorius inclines more to the former opinion, yet judges that the second is to be advised in practice ¹, provided that some cause does not advise otherwise. - Homo apostolicus, n. 23.

¹ Do not understand this as if in practice you ought to teach with the second opinion that in the case there is present an obligation to confess again before Communion; the meaning of St. Alphonsus here is, namely, that it is more advisable to confess again; especially because the memory of the omitted fault may impede the tranquil peace of conscience, and that devotion which is especially conducive to tasting the sweetness of this divine food and receiving abundant fruit.

327. • QUESTION 4. Whether a Priest who celebrated, or a layman who communicated conscious of mortal sin, without confession, on account of urgent necessity, is bound to confess AS SOON AS POSSIBLE?

Resp. 1. With respect to the Priest, affirmatively. For thus expressly the Tridentine Council, ibid., c. 7: But if, necessity urging, a Priest has celebrated without previous confession, let him confess AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

Resp. 2. With respect to the layman, no, more probably. The reason is that the Council of Trent speaks only of Priests, as is clear from the text. - Thus most commonly, says St. Ligorius, n. 268.

QUESTION 5. How is that precept imposed on Priests of confessing AS SOON AS POSSIBLE to be understood ²?

² You have two propositions concerning this matter condemned by Alexander VII. For the thirty-eighth is: The mandate of Trent made to a priest sacrificing from necessity with mortal sin, of confessing as soon as possible, is a counsel, not a precept; but the thirty-ninth: That particle, As soon as possible, is understood when the priest will confess in his own time.

Resp. More probably it suffices if the Priest confesses within three days; because since this precept is only ecclesiastical, the word as soon as possible can be understood morally, as it is understood in other human laws, where that word, or another similar one, by common interpretation is extended to the space of three days. - St. Ligorius, n. 266, and others. - Yet a Priest cannot celebrate again before he has been confessed, because he was not excused from confession except because of the instant necessity. Hence if the same necessity of celebrating urges on the following day, and he can confess ³, he cannot put off confession to another day.

³ But if the same necessity of celebrating urges on the following day, indeed also on the third thereafter, or even on the fourth, etc., day, and through those days also the supply of a Confessor is not present, the priest will be excused no otherwise than before.

328. • QUESTION 6. Whether a Priest celebrating after confession, in which he inculpably forgot some mortal sin, is bound to confess AS SOON AS POSSIBLE?

Resp. 1. No, if he remembers the sin after the celebration; because he did not celebrate conscious of that sin, as Trent speaks. - Thus commonly.

Resp. 2. No, more probably, even if he remembers the sin before the celebration; because since he has premised confession, although he forgot some grave sin, nevertheless he cannot be said to have celebrated conscious of mortal sin without previous confession. St. Ligorius, n. 267, says that this opinion is probable after Lacroix and others against Suarez, Lugo, etc.

QUESTION 7. Whether a Priest celebrating SACRILEGIOUSLY, when necessity is not urging, or if it is urging, when the supply of a Confessor is not lacking, is bound to confess AS SOON AS POSSIBLE?

Resp. No. The reason is that the precept of the Council of Trent is ordered only to striking fear into those who, under the pretext of necessity, defer confession, but not to those celebrating sacrilegiously, to whom a precept of this kind would very rarely be useful; for those who, with the divine precept contemned, dare to celebrate sacrilegiously, would certainly more easily contemn the precept of the Church. - Thus most commonly and more truly St. Ligorius, n. 266.

QUESTION 8. Whether affection for some venial sin impedes the whole fruit of Communion?

Resp. No. The reason is that the will can well experience pious movements toward God and the Sacrament, although it retains some lightly disordered affection for a particular thing; therefore one communicating with such an affection is not deprived of every fruit of the Eucharist. - St. Ligorius, n. 270, and others more commonly.

A twofold disposition is required on the part of the body, namely 1. fasting; 2. decency.

What disposition of body is required for receiving the Eucharist? - By precept of the Church, natural fasting is required for Communion, or total abstinence after midnight from any thing whatever, however small, which is taken by way of food and drink, with certain cases nevertheless excepted. This is clear: 1. from the universal custom of the Church and unanimous tradition; 2. from all Catechisms and Rituals approved by the Church; 3. from various Councils, and especially from the Council of Constance, sess. 13.

For breaking that fast, three conditions are required according to the common opinion: 1. That what is taken be taken from outside and passed into the stomach, because what does not come from outside, even if it is voluntarily swallowed, is not called eating; for things which are eaten come from outside. Hence blood flowing from the mouth, tongue, gums, etc., does not break the fast. 2. That something be taken by way of eating or drinking. The reason is that, according to the common sense of men, the natural fast is broken only in that way. Hence whatever is drawn in by way of breathing or saliva in no way breaks the fast. Thus you remain fasting even if by breathing you swallow dust or a fly. 3. That the thing taken have the character of food or drink, that is, that it be something alterable in the stomach. The reason is that otherwise, according to the common mode of conceiving, it is not eating, nor drinking. For no one is said to eat iron, glass, wood, etc. L. 279-281; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 80, a. 8; 4 dist. 8, q. 1, a. 4, q. 2 ad 3; E. M.

5. Robertinus, a confessor, very rarely permits communion to his penitents outside Easter time; because, he says, penitents very rarely have that necessary preparation or devotion by which one ought to approach sacred communion. But he permits frequent communion to scarcely anyone, since there is scarcely anyone who is free not only from mortal sins, but even from venial sins.

Quaer. What is to be said about Robertinus's manner of acting?

R. Robertinus's manner of acting is altogether to be disapproved. The necessary preparation by which one can approach sacred communion is indeed that, and no other, concerning which the Apostle says: But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice; for he who eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself.

The Council of Trent, sess. 13. cap. 7., says concerning this necessary preparation of the soul: Wherefore, to one wishing to communicate, that precept, namely of the Apostle, must be recalled: But let a man prove himself. But ecclesiastical custom declares that this proof is necessary: that no one conscious to himself of mortal sin, however contrite he may seem to himself, ought to approach the sacred Eucharist without sacramental confession having first been made. But in cap. 8 immediately following, it exhorts the faithful to receive that supersubstantial bread frequently. And finally, sess. 22, de Sacr. missae, cap. 6, it speaks thus: The holy Synod would indeed desire that in each Mass the faithful standing by should communicate, not only by spiritual affection, but also by sacramental reception of the Eucharist.

Therefore, if from these judgments of the Tridentine Fathers taken together we search out their mind thoroughly, we shall certainly have this as explored: that those indeed are to be removed altogether from the Eucharistic table who, oppressed by consciousness of mortal sin, are judged unworthy of so great and so singular a gift of God. Wherefore, if from indications of sorrow and from amendment of new life the confessor does not doubt that sacramental absolution can be imparted to his penitents, neither ought he to hesitate that the same are now sufficiently disposed for eating the Lord's bread. Nor indeed can such penitents, thus disposed and prepared, be repelled from sacred communion indiscriminately and without grave cause, namely, if they have been held worthy of the benefit of sacramental absolution. Indiscriminately and without grave cause; for, for those who are accustomed to commit grave sins, and who, since they have contracted disordered habits and are careless of their own salvation, easily slip afterward into graver crimes to be committed, the salutary remedy of medicinal severity can sometimes be applied.

Moreover, from the cited texts of Trent it is clear that the Tridentine Fathers persuade the faithful to frequent use of the Eucharist; indeed, that they desire that in each Mass the faithful standing by become participants from the Eucharistic table. But it would be altogether useless to exhort the faithful to frequent communion; and the daily communion of the same faithful could not only not be desired, but not even hoped for, if those alone were refreshed by the Eucharistic bread who were free from every stain even of lighter fault. Wherefore all those who are not yet free from venial sins are not indiscriminately to be barred from frequent communion.

If confessors diligently weigh these things, they will certainly see that the custom of those is not to be praised who, in order to permit communion to their penitents, demand, because of the dignity of the sacrament of the Eucharist, certain singular and scarcely to be hoped-for dispositions, and far greater ones than those which suffice for obtaining absolution in the sacrament of penance. - And as regards granting frequent communion, certainly greater devotion of the faithful is to be stirred up; they are to be more sharply inflamed to detestation of past crimes; and those inclined to venial sins are to be efficaciously stirred up to detestation also of these; then a certain hunger, as it were, and vehement desire for Eucharistic food is to be stirred up, so that with the greatest reverence and piety they can receive it. But just as the strength of the body is sustained by food itself, so the languor and infirmity of the soul is driven away and strengthened by this spiritual food by which we are fed. Whence Augustine says in Serm. de verb. Apost.: Daily you sin, daily receive. And if anyone attends diligently, he will discover that the opinion of all the Fathers who have written concerning this matter was the same. Catech. Roman. n. 60., Instr. S. C. de P. F. 19 Apr. 1784., Collectan. n. 719., Ferrar. Supp. v. Communio, Gennari Sulla Comun. freq. I. M. 579.

“15. The error is great of those who approach the Sacrament of the Eucharist relying on this: that they have confessed, that they are not conscious to themselves of any mortal sin, and that they have sent their prayers and preparations before them; all these eat and drink judgment to themselves. But if they believe and trust that they will obtain grace there, this faith alone makes them pure and worthy.” Proposition of Martin Luther condemned by Leo X.

“22. Those are to be judged sacrilegious who claim a right to receive Communion before they have performed a worthy penance for their offenses.—23. Likewise, those in whom there is not yet the most pure love of God, free from every admixture, are to be restrained from Holy Communion.”—Propositions condemned by Alexander VIII. Cf. C. 719, 722.

“38. The command of Trent, made to a priest who sacrifices from necessity while in mortal sin, to confess as soon as possible, is a counsel, not a precept.—39. That expression as soon as possible is understood as: when the priest shall confess at his own time.”—Propositions condemned by Alexander VII.

70. 5. Frequent reception of the sacraments.² The aforesaid means become much more efficacious if the sacraments are received frequently and devoutly, especially penance and the Eucharist. (a) For as often as we seriously look into the recesses of conscience, and candidly open to the spiritual physician not only external sins, but also internal thoughts more or less shameful which tend to lust, as well as the dangerous occasions which we voluntarily approach, or in which, compelled by a certain necessity, we dwell - first indeed we conceive a greater horror of all such foulnesses; then we receive opportune counsels concerning fleeing occasions and the means of overcoming temptations; and, sacramental grace acceding, we are made more strenuous for despising the enticements of the flesh.

² Lacordaire speaks excellently concerning the means which the Catholic religion supplies for cultivating chastity, Conf. de N. Dame, 22nd and 23rd.

(b) Nor is holy communion less efficacious; for there our flesh is sanctified by the flesh of Christ, and, when we frequently receive the author of purity Himself, does it not shame us to hand over the very members of Christ to luxury? "Know you not that your bodies are the members of Christ? Taking therefore the members of Christ, shall I make them the members of a harlot? God forbid."¹ Besides, nothing protects us more from sensual love than the chaste love of Christ: therefore when we are lovingly joined to the Lord in the sacrament of the altar, earthly pleasures indeed become distasteful; and our heart, preoccupied by the love of God, is less solicitous about unlawful loves.

¹ 1 Pet. 4:8.

Therefore let Christians attend to these words of Paul:² "For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that you should abstain from fornication. That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honor; not in the passion of desire, like the Gentiles who know not God."

² 1 Thess. 4:3-5.

Civil law in various regions punishes with penalties certain delicts against good morals, especially when they are public, or perpetrated by force, or against justice. From the French Penal Code we have excerpted the following articles:

Art. 330. (Law of May 13, 1863.) Any person who shall have committed a public outrage against modesty shall be punished by imprisonment from three months to two years, and by a fine of 16 francs to 200 francs.³

³ In order that the outrage against modesty be deemed public, it suffices that it has been or could have been perceived, whether it was committed in an open place, or in a private place in the presence of a witness. - This article was completed by the law of March 16, 1898: "Whoever shall have committed the delict of outrage against good morals shall be punished by imprisonment from one month to two years and by a fine of 100 to 5000 francs: - by the sale or placing on sale, the offering, exhibition, posting, or distribution, on the public way or in public places, of writings, printed matter other than a book, posters, drawings, engravings, paintings, emblems, objects, or images which are obscene or contrary to good morals; - by the sale or offering, even non-public, to a minor, of the same writings, printed matter, posters, etc.; - by their distribution at home, by their delivery under wrapper and under unsealed envelope at the door..., by unauthorized songs publicly uttered, by public announcements or correspondence contrary to good morals."

331. (Law of May 13, 1863.) Every assault against modesty, consummated or attempted without violence upon the person of a child of either sex, under the age of thirteen years, shall be punished by reclusion.

The assault against modesty committed by any ascendant upon the person of a minor shall be punished by the same penalty, even if he is more than thirteen years of age, but not emancipated by marriage.¹

¹ The attempt foreseen by article 331 has its own character and is not subject to the general rule of article 2 of the Penal Code; the assault is committed as soon as it has been attempted. Therefore it is not necessary to establish, as in ordinary cases, that the attempt failed to have its effect only by a circumstance independent of the will of its author. - Cass., Aug. 4, 1853.

332. Whoever shall have committed the crime of rape shall be punished by hard labor for a term.

If the crime was committed upon the person of a child below the completed age of fifteen years, the guilty person shall undergo the maximum of the penalty of hard labor for a term.

Whoever shall have committed an assault against modesty, consummated or attempted with violence against individuals of either sex, shall be punished by reclusion.

If the crime was committed upon the person of a child below the completed age of fifteen years, the guilty person shall undergo the penalty of hard labor for a term.

333. (Law of May 13, 1863.) If the guilty persons are ascendants of the person upon whom the assault was committed, if they are of the class of those who have authority over him, if they are his teachers or his hired servants, or hired servants of the persons designated above, if they are public officials or ministers of a cult, or if the guilty person, whoever he may be, was aided in his crime by one or several persons, the penalty shall be that of hard labor for a term, in the case foreseen by paragraph 1 of article 331, and hard labor for life, in the cases foreseen by the preceding article.²

² The designation made by this article of certain persons upon whom their quality impresses the character of authority is only enumerative and does not exclude the application of the law to special and unforeseen facts from which authority can result. - Cass., Aug. 9, 1867. - Article 333 extends to those who have authority over the victim, without distinguishing between permanent authority and discontinuous authority. - Cass., Aug. 27, 1857.

334. Whoever shall have made an attempt against morals, by habitually exciting, favoring, or facilitating the debauchery or corruption of the youth of either sex below the age of twenty-one years, shall be punished by imprisonment from six months to two years, and by a fine of fifty francs to five hundred francs.

If the prostitution or corruption was excited, favored, or facilitated by their father, mother, tutor, or other persons charged with their supervision, the penalty shall be from two years to five years of imprisonment, and from three hundred to one thousand francs of fine.¹

¹ Article 334 is inapplicable to him who, in exciting minors to debauchery, has no other end than to satisfy his own passions, without making himself an intermediary agent of corruption. - Cass., assembled chambers, March 24, 1853; May 1, 1854; March 15, 1860; Aug. 21, 1863. - Although article 334 must be understood in this sense, that it reaches only him who has employed himself as an intermediary agent of corruption in the interest of the passions of another, nevertheless there is complicity in this delict on the part of him who, to satisfy his own libertinage, has, by one of the means set forth in article 60, provoked the intervention of procuring. - Cass., Nov. 10, 1860. - And it is not necessary, in order that complicity exist in such a case, that the provocation in question have been habitual: habit, which forms one of the elements of the delict of excitation to debauchery, is not required to constitute complicity in the terms of article 60.

335. Those guilty of the delict mentioned in the preceding article shall be interdicted from every tutelage or curatorship, and from every participation in family councils; namely, the individuals to whom the first paragraph of that article applies, for at least two years and at most five years, and those of whom it is spoken in the second paragraph, for at least ten years and at most twenty years.

If the delict was committed by the father or the mother, the guilty person shall moreover be deprived of the rights and advantages accorded to him over the person and goods of the child by the Civil Code, book I, title IX, On Paternal Power.

In all cases, the guilty persons may moreover be placed, by the decision or judgment, under the surveillance of the high police, observing, for the duration of the surveillance, what has just been established for the duration of the interdiction mentioned in the present article.

336. The adultery of the wife may be denounced only by the husband; this faculty itself shall cease if he is in the case foreseen by article 339.²

² The public ministry cannot prosecute the delict of adultery except upon the complaint of the husband, and he can charge a third party, by special power, to denounce the adultery in his name and follow the action. - Cass., Nov. 23, 1855.

337. The woman convicted of adultery shall undergo the penalty of imprisonment for at least three months and at most two years.

The husband shall remain master of stopping the effect of this condemnation, by consenting to take back his wife.

338. The accomplice of the adulterous woman shall be punished by imprisonment for the same space of time, and, moreover, by a fine of one hundred francs to two thousand francs.

The only proofs which may be admitted against the accused of complicity shall be, besides the manifest delict, those resulting from letters or other written pieces written by the accused.

339. The husband who shall have kept a concubine in the conjugal home, and who shall have been convicted upon the complaint of the wife, shall be punished by a fine of one hundred francs to two thousand francs.

The Belgian Penal Code contains analogous provisions, art. 372-391, and moreover penalties against the abduction of minors, especially girls below the completed age of sixteen years (368-371).

An international arrangement was concluded at Paris, on May 18, 1904, between France, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Great Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Sweden and Norway, and Switzerland, in view of assuring effective protection against "the white-slave traffic," that is, against the recruitment of women and girls for debauchery abroad, and to facilitate the repatriation of the victims of this shameful traffic. The text was published by the Journal Officiel of February 19, 1905. Cf. Questions actuelles, t. 77, March 4, 1905, pp. 286-287.

— The reality or special grace of this sacrament, instituted for the refreshment of our soul, is the spiritual transformation of man into Christ, our life, through charity, whose habit it increases and whose acts it excites. That is, the effects which temporal food works for bodily life, this food works the same effects for spiritual life. For it sustains this life, both by increasing habitual grace and by exciting the fervor of charity; it increases it, insofar as it is directly and specially referred to perfecting charity, whence the wound of "egoism" is healed, and sanctifying grace and the other virtues receive an increase; it repairs: for by exciting fervent acts of charity ex opere operato, it takes away venial sins and the damages which they have brought upon us; it delights already through the very active love which it excites. Thus almost Cardinal Billot, De Euch.

— 1. General Rule. "Any baptized person who is not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to Holy Communion." By these words c. 853 establishes the right of a Christian to the spiritual refreshment of his soul, without a positive demonstration of his worthiness, so that only the publicly unworthy and manifestly infamous are to be kept away, if they ask publicly; but hidden ones only if they ask secretly from a minister who outside confession knows that they are not amended (cf. c. 855 and what was said n. 191-194).

Yet those also can be repelled who approach Holy Communion dressed less modestly or with that adornment which approved usage prohibits, especially if they have first been warned, at least by a general edict. These are not kept away as sinners, but as troublesome and uncivil petitioners; nor do they become infamous from a repulse whose reason is manifest.

— II. Communion of Children. Although baptized children receive this sacrament validly and fruitfully, nevertheless the present discipline of the Church, by which greater reverence for the sacrament is provided for, expressed in canon 854, establishes these several things concerning children:

1. Those are not to be admitted who, on account of the weakness of age, do not yet have knowledge and taste of this sacrament;

2. Those constituted in danger of death can and must be admitted to Holy Communion who know how to distinguish the body of Christ from common food, and reverently to adore it;

3. Outside danger of death, that fuller knowledge and more accurate preparation is said to be required by which they know at least the mysteries to be believed by necessity of means, and devoutly, according to the measure of their age, approach the Most Holy Eucharist;

4. The confessors of the children and their parents, or those who are in the place of parents, judge concerning the sufficient disposition of the children;

5. To the pastor a twofold office is assigned: a) of watching lest children approach the sacred synaxis before the use of reason or without sufficient disposition; which vigilance he can exercise even by examination, if he has prudently judged it opportune; b) of taking care that those who have attained the use of reason and are sufficiently disposed be refreshed as soon as possible by this divine food.

That we may explain this canon somewhat, according to its importance, first it must be well held that by it the several norms of the decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, Quam singulari, August 8, 1910, are confirmed entirely. Indeed the Code presents them in the same words. For art. 3 of the said decree sounds thus: "The knowledge of religion which is required in a child that he may suitably prepare himself for first Communion is that by which he, according to his capacity, perceives the mysteries of faith necessary by necessity of means, and distinguishes eucharistic bread from common and bodily bread, so that he may approach the Most Holy Eucharist with that devotion which his age bears." Only in this way do the norms of the Code differ from the norms of the decree, that the decree was issued for uprooting the error of those who delayed the Communion of children too much, and therefore had to insist on the facility with which children were to be admitted; while the Code also, as human nature is inclined to excesses, had to restrain or impede the contrary excesses of those who, not attending at all to the conditions placed in the decree, almost compel children indiscriminately to the sacred table. Wherefore, wishing to meet this indiscreet zeal, it places and vindicates more in recto the necessity of fuller knowledge and more accurate preparation in a healthy child.

Moreover it does three things for this end. In §1, proceeding negatively, with the Roman Ritual, from which that paragraph is taken, it keeps away children to whom knowledge and taste of the Most Holy Eucharist are lacking. Taste can be said either to be that hunger or sincere will by which they desire to receive Christ, and do not merely wish to please parents and imitate adults; or that devotion proportionate to age. For the condition of approach under the form of hunger was expressed by D. de Segur: He loves Jesus Christ and desires him; under the form of devotion it was rendered by St. Thomas: "When children begin to have some use of reason, so that they can conceive devotion for this sacrament." Now each passage has been praised in decrees of the Holy See.

Then §3 says positively that those are to be admitted who, according to their capacity, perceive the mysteries necessary by necessity of means, and approach devoutly according to their measure.

Finally, §5 indicates the regular time: the attained use of reason. For before this they are to be repelled; afterward children are to be led, or disposed as soon as possible. But from can. 88, seven years completed is presumed to be that time. As is clear, according to the cultivation of children, according to the very climate under which they live, exceptions can be more frequent or less frequent.

Wherefore, no less after the promulgated Code than after the decrees of Pius X, children who have not yet attained seven years can be admitted if they satisfy the conditions; but before the completed seventh year, they must dispel the contrary presumption, while after the seventh year, the presumption of capacity favors them.

Nothing is suggested concerning a general or subsequent solemn Communion of children: therefore the usage of the region will have to be considered; but that solemnity is greatly to be commended (Provincial Council of Mechlin, nn. 193 and 280).

Finally it can be asked how the judgment concerning the disposition of children, which is permitted to the confessor and parents, is to be combined with the office of vigilance of pastors.

In this way, unless we are mistaken. Concerning individual children, parents and confessors can judge, nor must they warn the pastor or approach him for consultation. At the same time a certain general inspection, as of the external forum, is committed to the pastor, of observing which children approach or omit Communion. Then, if he has some of those approaching under suspicion of ignorance, he can test them even by examination; but those later whom he thinks fit or to be disposed he will try to lead to Holy Communion. In each case, it is necessary that he have authority among parents ¹; yet a strict obligation of obeying him is not imposed by law. But the pastor cannot, relying on this can. 854, generally subordinate the first Communion of children in his parish to the condition of a previous examination. Nor will he repel from the sacred table a child who publicly but reverently asks for Holy Communion, because he doubts about his age or has himself demanded greater preparation. For such a child is not a public sinner or infamous. And public denial, especially if signs of impatience accompany it, will easily produce lasting or irreparable effects of timidity or aversion, even among other children who are witnesses of the matter. Yet it will be lawful for a pastor who doubts about a child to speak to him kindly and question him, and, if the case bears it, gently remove him from the sacred table.

¹ "The judgment of pastors concerning these children (whom because of a prudent doubt they have examined) must be stood by." Provincial Council of Mechlin, 1920, art. 188.

— III. Required State of Grace. The state of grace is required by divine precept. And he who is in mortal sin, under mortal sin, must confess before reception of the Eucharist, unless there is necessity of communicating and the opportunity of a confessor is lacking: the Church thus defined the proving which from St. Paul, 1 Cor. 11, is necessary, whether it merely declared the divine law, or completed it by its own authority. Cf. Trent, sess. XIII, ch. 7 with can. 11, and Code c. 856.

When the opportunity of a confessor is lacking was said above, n. 317, 2. But the necessity of communicating will scarcely be other than that of avoiding disgrace or infamy; and the almost sole case will be if you are already physically or morally at the Communion rail, and then remember a mortal sin committed after the last confession. Nor is he excused who rashly, conscious of evil disposition, has gone with his family to church intending to confess and communicate, and has not been absolved by the priest.

What shall we say about that wonder which, in more than one community, he will excite who, accustomed to communicate daily, on a certain day, especially if it has been more solemn, omits Communion?

Nor can we, from the general rule, grant Communion to him without confession first made. For either it concerns a very rare case, and then he has an easy opportunity of creating another impediment which he will narrate without shame, by breaking the fast; or it concerns a case not so rare. Then it was his part so to arrange his Communions that from the beginning he would be known as one not communicating daily. But if he neglected this, as a frail man he ought reasonably to have admitted the consequence of some suspicion, which nevertheless is not strictly infaming, since abstinence can also be attributed to scruples. But again consider the harms of a faculty conceded to laypersons, and even to youths, of approaching the sacred table after a mortal sin not remitted by absolution: how much it would derogate from the reverence of the Most Holy Eucharist, how much it would diminish horror of sin, how much it would take away from the effort to extirpate a depraved habit!

But this is the reason why, especially in colleges, there must be holy liberty not only of communicating but also of abstaining from use of the Holy Eucharist; why confessors should prudently direct penitents in a strictly daily approach to the sacred table, and dissuade it from him who easily falls into grave sin and is not prepared to contemn the wonder of bystanders; why also, as far as can be done, daily opportunity of a confessor should be provided for a community where the pious use of daily Communion is accustomed to flourish.

Some also permit Communion without confession to him who otherwise would be prohibited from fulfilling the precept of paschal Communion.

But the precept of confessing immediately after, when in necessity you have omitted confession, obliges only priests celebrating, and therefore not a priest or layperson who has merely received Holy Communion.

— Appendix X belongs to this section. IV. Required Fasting. 1. Historical matters. Cf. Appendix X.

2. The law in force. "He who has not observed the natural fast from midnight cannot be admitted to the Most Holy Eucharist": this is the general rule of c. 858, §1, whose exceptions we shall soon weigh.

Whatever has been taken from midnight onward in the manner of food or drink, even for a medicinal end, breaks the natural fast. Nor does smallness of matter excuse. Thus the concordant opinion of Catholics.

Moreover three conditions are necessary for breaking this fast:

1. That the thing have the ratio of food or drink;

2. That it be taken from without;

3. That it be taken "in the manner of eating or drinking" (St. Alphonsus, 6, 280). And here intention can have some efficacy;

4. That it be taken from midnight onward.

1. A thing is said to have the ratio of food or drink which is digestible, or in itself, for what happens accidentally because of the condition of the stomach is not to be considered, is altered in the stomach, broadly accepted. Wherefore what is chemically demonstrated to be in no way capable of being converted within into something else, but to pass through the body unchanged, for example paraffin, can be taken before Communion without fault. And even if it is altered, that also can be taken which in common estimation is not thought to have the ratio of food or drink. Thus says a truly probable opinion, since in a sacramental matter common estimation is accustomed to have very great force.

Hence the ratio of food or drink is not had, or is judged not to be had, by metal, though certainly by iron powder or the like, not rarely prescribed by physicians; glass; little stones; hairs; silk or woolen thread, though certainly linen thread does; well-cleaned little fruit-pits; and probably fingernails, a little piece of dry wood, unless it is edible like rhubarb (rabarbaro, rhubarbe), glycyrrhiza, or liquorice (regolizia, reglisse), paper, wax, earth, chalk, and perhaps straw. Yet many deny this (cf. St. Alphonsus, 6, 281, end).

2. Taking from without is lacking in him who swallows the remains of food from a meal completed the previous day by chance, or even deliberately, since the rubric does not distinguish cases; who swallows, even deliberately, blood flowing from the teeth, tongue, or an ulcer inside the mouth, or flowing inward from the nose; who puts aromatics or tobacco leaves in the mouth or tastes something, provided that he transmits nothing into the stomach. But he takes from without who before midnight receives sugar or glycyrrhiza into his mouth so that he may gradually swallow them: there is had there a continued eating, just as in him who, with midnight imminent, takes food into the mouth which after midnight he breaks up with the teeth.

3. The following is not taken in the manner of food or drink: a) what at the same time, by chance, is drawn into the mouth while breathing, whether it is dust, a fly, or a gnat; b) what by chance is drawn through the nose, for example tobacco powder; c) what is swallowed mixed with saliva together with it: thus the small water with which you have washed the mouth, a particle of the tobacco leaf which you have chewed, a few little drops of blood or a little skin taken from the exterior lips; d) what of water perhaps remains in the stomach, which you wished to wash by means of a gastric siphon, provided you have not externally anointed the siphon with oil or an edible ointment; e) the smoke of tobacco or another fumigation.

Vomiting after eating does not destroy this, either because there will not be complete evacuation, or because by the eating itself you have broken the fast.

Observe that the response about a thing mixed with saliva or drawn in on the occasion of breathing does not hold unless it has been mixed or drawn in apart from intention.

4. As we said in the earlier part, the time of midnight can be chosen either as the usual time, or the true or mean time of the place, or legal, or regional, or another extraordinary time (c. 33): and various clocks which are not established to be in error are admitted in themselves as good authorities, which make a probable opinion. And they agree that in receiving the sacred banquet it is lawful for you to be content with probability of fact.

Yet this probability is destroyed by a certain indication of the hour, which, for example, in the City is given at midday.

According as clocks announce by their sound the hour already completed, as most do, or the hour imminent, one must cease from eating from the first or from the last stroke. Yet what you have received in the mouth before the stroke of the clock you are permitted to swallow, because the Church does not seem to impose on you the rusticity of spitting it out; and without doubt clocks are not lacking which sound a tiny bit later, so that it is not established that the fast has been broken. Thus Lehmkuhl, II, 316.

— In a doubt, whether positive or negative, whether or not you have taken something after midnight, since Communion is a most favorable thing and it concerns the exclusion of an impediment, not the acquiring of a positive quality, it is lawful to communicate. But it is not therefore permitted to eat or drink at any hour of the night and then allege ignorance of the hour for communicating. The precept of the Church, as the very usage of the faithful demonstrates, does not bear this interpretation. Cf. Lugo, Euch., d. 15, n. 42. In order that, in the night, you deliberately and licitly take something with the purpose of communicating, it is necessary, at least when means are at hand, that you probably judge it is not midnight. Cf. what was said in tome I, n. 374.

Wherefore they commonly keep away from Communion him who, lying down in the evening, has placed something in his mouth against hoarseness, unless he is certain that he transmitted nothing after midnight. Yet if it was in his mind to absorb the whole while awake, or to spit out the remainder, and by chance he was seized by sleep, the benign opinion which permits Communion to one ignorant of the hour of transmission can be admitted, and seems to us preferable. It can also happen that the thing is found so entire that nothing except perhaps a very tiny thing mixed with saliva has been absorbed. Access to the sacred table will be freely open.

For evacuating scruples, the better counsel will be that the nostrils be anointed with some oily material by which slightly humid air may be inhaled.

— Exceptions to the Law of Fasting.

1. When danger of death urges (c. 858). Therefore not only the sick but also those who because of an extrinsic cause are exposed to death are excused from the law. But for these the danger of death must be urgent, so that they cannot conveniently wait for another day on which they may communicate fasting (Cappello, I, n. 514); while the sick, from c. 858 and the former interpretation of the Council of Constance, strictly need no excuse of inconvenience. And in doubt about danger of death, one must respond in favor of the faculty of communicating. Cf. Genicot, II, 202.

N. B. The formula: "Receive, Brother (or Sister), the Viaticum of the body of Our Lord Jesus Christ," etc., is indeed to be used in itself, but it can be omitted if it is to be feared that the sick person may be disturbed by it.

And while the danger of death perseveres, after Viaticum, which is of precept, has been received, and even before, the Communion of the sick person who is not fasting can be repeated several times, on distinct days, according to the counsel of a prudent confessor, and therefore even daily (c. 864, §3).

2. Fear of death otherwise to be undergone, unless he is asked to do this in contempt of the precept or of religion, excuses the faithful person who communicates not fasting.

3. The Eucharist exposed to danger of profanation or loss can be received by one not fasting, even a layperson. Thus the canon itself excepts the necessity of providing for the reverence of the sacrament.

To this belongs the consumption of fragments after the ablution, in Mass. Therefore after the ablution, it is lawful for a priest, per accidens, for this is not to be done from a preconceived purpose, to receive smaller fragments pertaining to the same sacrifice, whether he is at the altar, or already in the sacristy, provided that he has not yet taken off the sacred vestments. Fragments of another sacrifice are not to be received after the ablution, unless danger of irreverence has been added; as if, after the last Mass, you discover very tiny particles which cannot, without danger, be carried to the tabernacle, or the tabernacle is lacking. Indeed, as is probable, a priest can purify a ciborium which he immediately needs, although distractedly he has already received the purification of the chalice, because this consumption is judged to be one with Holy Communion itself. Lehmkuhl, II, 192, 4, does not admit this if it concerns whole hosts. And indeed these in themselves can be preserved in the purified pyx itself. Palmieri, t. IV, n. 947, also inclines to the opinion of Tamburini, Exp. comm., §8, according to which a priest, as long as he is at the altar, can in strictness receive even fragments consecrated in another sacred action.

And by equal reason, "if a priest carries Communion to a sick person, in a hospital, and remains are left on the paten or in the chalice, the priest can receive them if he is still clothed in the sacred vestments for Mass. He can also give them immediately after the small host to the sick person, because it is judged one Communion." Cf. Roman Ritual, Order of administering Holy Communion.

N. B. The observance of the rubrics or an approved manner of acting liturgically must not be impeded by fear of a broken fast, because the Church, while it gives or approves these norms, tacitly dispenses, as far as is necessary, from the law of fasting. Thus the Sacred Congregation itself responded that salt placed in the mouth of a neophyte in the ceremonies of baptism does not obstruct Communion immediately following. Thus, that in a prior sacred action, while before the consumption of the blood fragments are gathered, small unconsecrated things are poured into the chalice and received together with the blood of Christ, this does not impede the following Mass of bination; and say the same about little unconsecrated drops which are mixed with the sacred blood. Thus he who on Friday in Parasceve, by drinking wine, has left part of the sacred host in the chalice, receives this with a safe conscience; and he who, in receiving the blood of Christ, has left a consecrated particle in the chalice, from the rubrics themselves of the Missal (De defectibus, X, 8), has the option of bringing it with his finger to the lip of the chalice, or of pouring in wine and receiving it. Thus finally when, according to received custom, after the species of bread has been received, wine to be drunk is given to children after first Communion or to newly ordained priests, they ought to be affected by no anxiety because they first swallowed liquid. For the manifest intention of the Church does not comprehend these things by its law of fasting. Some give this reason, that by the law it is forbidden that you receive anything before Communion, but by no means that together with Communion you receive something else. The reason given first seems to us more simple and adequate.

— Dispensation by Law. "The sick who have already been lying ill for a month without certain hope that they will quickly recover can, by the prudent counsel of the confessor, receive the Most Holy Eucharist once or twice in the week, even if they have previously taken some medicine or something in the manner of drink" (c. 858, §2).

This faculty was first conceded by a decree of Pius X through the Sacred Congregation of the Council, December 7, 1906, but then Communion twice in the week was not permitted except in houses where the Most Holy Eucharist was preserved, or Mass could be celebrated: outside such houses Communion was conceded only twice in the month; nor was solid medicine indulged.

This canon, since it derogates from a grave law, is to be interpreted strictly. Nevertheless usage has prevailed of benignly understanding the word "lying ill," so that even those sick persons who can carry themselves to church are permitted to use the faculty. Thus also Cappello, op. cit., I, 506.

But the other conditions are to be observed accurately. Therefore it is required:

1. That it concerns the truly sick. Such are those whose strength, whether by disease, by old age, or by weakness, has been truly broken, so that at least morally they can be called lying ill. There is no need of a grave or dangerous disease;

2. That they have already been lying ill, or laboring under infirmity, for a month. A month, from the Code, is a space of 30 days, which Rev. Fr. Cappello, loc. cit., understands morally of a space of 26 or 27 days. But in no way can it be admitted that the faculty be extended to those who are affected by a disease which is foreseen to be going to last at least thirty days. By an interpretation of this kind open force would be inflicted on the words, which are to be taken strictly;

3. That there be lacking certain hope of proximate recovery. Certain hope confers a certain moral certitude. Proximate recovery is that which will be obtained within a few days, three or four;

4. It is necessary that they act according to the counsel of a prudent confessor, such as every approved confessor is judged to be. In giving counsel, the spiritual dispositions of the soul are to be considered first; yet the confessor must also be solicitous that the conditions of the privilege have been fulfilled;

5. Communion is not permitted, after the fast has been broken, except once or twice in the week. It is not in the power of the confessor to permit more frequent Communion under any pretext. And this would be grave. Cf. also Cappello, I, n. 506, 4. Yet a probable opinion allows use of the privilege twice in the week to him who, on the other days, certainly with his own inconvenience, receives the sacrament fasting;

6. Only medicine, or something in the manner of drink, is permitted. Medicine can be solid, such as a little lozenge. Common sense will teach what has the ratio of medicine. It must have a direct order to healing some ailment. Therefore it cannot be confused with food which is used rather for strengthening the powers, although it can be said to have been taken in the manner of medicine. But in the manner of drink are also taken crushed solid fragments which float in a liquid. Hence already on September 7, 1897 the words "in the manner of drink" were so declared that it was lawful "to take broth, coffee, milk, or another liquid food, even if some substance has been mixed with it, for example light little pellets of flour (semolino), bread grated into crumbs (pangrattato), a diluted egg, etc., provided the mixture does not lose the nature of liquid food."

The egg itself in its natural state, or not cooked or very lightly cooked, is said to be drunk. But a little lozenge or sugar is not drunk, but eaten, although dissolved by the heat of the mouth it is then swallowed. For the usage of common speech is that attention is paid to the manner in which it is received in the mouth: at that moment, and not afterward, the thing is said to have been taken. Wherefore, that an uncooked egg is said to be taken in the manner of drink, we easily admit with Rev. Fr. Cappello, I, n. 507; but we think one must respond otherwise about lozenges, sugar, etc., even if they are sent into the stomach completely dissolved by the heat of the mouth.

Now moral inability to observe the fast is not required. But unless some serious inconvenience is connected with observing the fast, the required counsel of communicating without the fast having been observed cannot be given by a prudent confessor.

N. B. It is sometimes conceded to bishops that they may be able to permit Communion to these sick persons three times in the week, after liquid or medicine has been taken. Moreover number 42 of the faculties of Nuncios or Apostolic Delegates allows that, even before the end of the month from which they have been lying ill, or even to sick persons not lying ill, they may concede Communion once in the week without the fast being observed as above. The faculties of Propaganda Fide give to bishops, Vicars, and Prefects Apostolic power to permit Communion to the sick lying ill, even before the end of the month, without the fast being observed, twice or three times in the week, indeed even daily if they are priests or religious.

— Dispensation Through the Sacred Congregation. To those who morally cannot observe the natural fast, the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, or, for religious, the Sacred Congregation of Religious, grants Communion even daily, after anything has been taken in the manner of drink. The faculty to be executed is usually committed to the Ordinary of the petitioner, by the counsel of the confessor, and sometimes to the confessor himself. Thus far the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments does not permit solid medicine, but only what has the ratio of drink.

— Various Things to Be Noted. The strict prohibition is only of taking anything from midnight onward: but the reason of decency will counsel that a fitting interval be interposed from the last meal, unless an excusing cause is present. Wherefore not rarely in indults by which either Communion or nocturnal Mass is permitted, the condition of a reasonable interval of hours is attached.

And although no positive law forbids it, it is certainly counsel that you not take food before the species are prudently thought to have been consumed. To omit this without cause is held as venial irreverence by St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 283.

But one must beware lest, after Holy Communion, the stomach at some point be compelled to cast out food together with the species.

But sputum, since it does not flow through the esophagus, can safely be expectorated, unless some fragment of the sacred host adheres to the teeth; on account of which cause it will be better to wait somewhat.

— V. No stain of the body in itself impedes reception of the Most Holy Eucharist, since it has no bearing on moral goodness. How much less the hidden stain of menstruation. Wherefore today we judge it consonant with the mind of the Holy See that not even counsel be given about omitting Communion during the time of menstruation.

— Concerning involuntary pollution, concerning voluntary pollution but expiated by confession, concerning the use of marriage, a universal rule cannot be handed down, but the matter is to be committed to a prudent confessor. He will attend to the utility of Holy Communion, to the reverence due to the Most Holy Eucharist, to the internal disposition of the communicant, who can approach either disturbed by carnal affection or, on the contrary, with a serene mind, and to the scandal which would be given by him who soon after sin committed with an accomplice should sit down at the sacred table. To those who are accustomed to communicate rarely, but not to those who communicate almost daily, the counsel can be given that on days of Holy Communion they not indulge in the carnal work. After a carnal sin has been committed, the very reason of reverence requires, in itself, some delay of Communion. Involuntary pollution is not a reason for dissuading Communion, unless the occupied imagination impedes devotion, or abstinence can contribute to the fervor of devotion. It is clear that a prudent confessor will not of his own accord speak either about the use of marriage or about menstruation.

— VI. The reason of reverence also requires that other signs of honor, although they are not strictly prescribed, be observed by communicants according to the custom of places and the ability which they have: for example, cleanliness of clothing, the custom of laying aside gloves and weapons, etc.

— What the Necessity of Communion Is. The more common opinion of theologians today, denying necessity of means, strongly vindicates only a necessity of precept of receiving the Most Holy Eucharist. For first grace is infused in Baptism and restored through Penance, so that the Most Holy Eucharist, destined for nourishing our spiritual life, can be supplied by other nourishments of that life. Yet the food of our soul ordained by God is to be received sometimes in the manner of food; and this is demonstrated both by the divine ordination itself and by the words of the Lord: "Amen, amen, I say to you: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you" (John 6:54), in which at least a grave precept must be read. The same theologians also commonly think that Viaticum must be received in danger of death by divine precept. Yet they do not bring forward a compelling reason for this precept. They derive the chief argument from the supreme spiritual necessity in which man is then placed, so that man could neglect that assistance only by gravely derogating from charity toward himself. Moreover it is sufficiently established that a precept not much defined is to be regulated by the Church. Hence they well understand and explain how the discipline concerning the age of first Communion and concerning frequency of use could vary and has varied.

Things are conceived in a sufficiently dissimilar way if, with St. Thomas and the Roman Catechism and most ancient doctors, we profess that the Most Holy Eucharist is necessary by necessity of means, in reality or in desire, so that first grace itself, whether in Baptism or in Penance, is rather conferred from the desire of the Eucharist. This St. Thomas and also the Roman Catechism hand down in express words: "First grace is granted to no one unless they receive this sacrament itself by desire and vow" (2, 4, 51-52). And the reason is that the immolated flesh of Christ is at once the price of our redemption and the principle of our sanctification: to which it is wholly necessary to adhere (de la Taille, op. cit., p. 608). Then there is a genuine use of the words of the Lord just alleged: for less than a precept, they render a condition without which not. And because "a desire would be vain unless it were fulfilled when opportunity was present" (St. Thomas, 3 p., q. 80, art. 11, c.), at once there appears the obligation of sometimes receiving the Most Holy Eucharist as food of the soul, so that we may have life in us. The question concerning the grave obligation of divine law of Viaticum is then solved quite conveniently, limited to him who in danger of death has had to be truly reconciled with God: for he must take care that before death he be refreshed by the Most Holy Eucharist, lest his desire be in itself fruitless.

Yet the explanation of the varied custom of the Church concerning the age of first Communion and concerning frequency of use then becomes less convenient. And a threefold way of solution can be entered upon. For either you contend that the rules most happily given by Pius X had always in themselves to be observed, but remained unknown until our progress in faith had detected them, which in a matter of use so universal and daily is scarcely credible; or you ascribe to obscurity brought in through heresy the cold severity about approach to the sacred table which everywhere prevailed for many centuries before Pius X; and that the Jansenian heresy had to be culpably and harmfully blamed, the pontifical documents on daily Communion signify not obscurely; or also here you place in the power of the Church the establishing of norms, according to the common good, concerning the first and necessary approach to the Most Holy Eucharist, just as the Church also establishes how recourse must be had to Penance, whose necessity of means is denied by no Catholic. And this explanation pleases us more. The Church could, because of better preparation of intellect and soul, in another epoch have delayed first Communion, while today there is a twofold cause why even before the age when the dangers of grave sin are accustomed to be greater, it has defined that one must approach the sacred table: that is, the invading neo-paganism whose attacks must be resisted strongly through supernatural life; and the diffusion of literary education, which brings it about that young people can sooner be refreshed with due devotion by the sacred banquet.

Now he who uses or abstains from the Most Holy Eucharist according to rules approved or commanded by the Church fulfills his desire of receiving the Eucharist in a reasonable manner: which is required for salvation and suffices.

Thus far concerning necessity in itself. Practically, besides, the more frequent use of the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist becomes, not so rarely, a morally necessary means for overcoming temptations, when there is scarcely hope of obtaining such a use of other remedies as would suffice for carrying off that victory. Wherefore, although it does not seem opportune that this frequency be strictly imposed as per accidens necessary for many, because in strictness other means are at hand, and to the languid a remedy would be prescribed in vain which they would refuse or neglect to take, still by every reason, youths and many unmarried persons are to be brought, especially if they are given to softness, to strengthen themselves as frequently as they can by this sacred banquet.

— I. Communion Prescribed to the Healthy. "Every faithful person of either sex, after he has arrived at the years of discretion, that is, at the use of reason, must once in the year, at least at Easter, receive the sacrament of the Eucharist, unless perhaps, by the counsel of his own priest, for some reasonable cause, he has thought he must abstain for a time from its reception" (c. 859, §1).

By this canon the precept already promulgated in the Lateran Council is confirmed, an opportune explanation being added.

1. And first, by the present discipline all are held by this precept who have arrived at the use of reason, even if they have not yet completed the age of seven years. This age of seven years supplies a certain presumption, which always yields to the truth. Having attained the use of reason, they will not have to communicate as soon as possible; but since from possession of the use of reason they are held by the common law, they do not seem able to defer Communion beyond the next Easter.

2. "Once in the year, at least at Easter": by these words it is shown that the precept is virtually twofold: of communicating once in the year, and of communicating at Easter, so that he who has not wished or has not been able to communicate at Easter is held by the obligation of annual Communion, unless already in the same civil year he has worthily received Holy Communion (cf. c. 859, §4). For although from the decree of Eugene IV, July 8, 1440, the year seems to be computed from Easter to Easter, nevertheless some, among whom is Lugo himself, Euch., d. 16, n. 19, permit civil computation. But then it is necessary that the Christian be constant in that computation, and not wish so to join each that he is refreshed by the sacred banquet only once in two years, as if Communion is made at Easter 1922, and then only in 1924, also at Easter. The obligation of receiving Holy Communion as soon as possible after Easter is not had unless special law has defined the matter otherwise.

The paschal time for satisfying the ecclesiastical precept is vainly anticipated, unless by him who foresees that he will be impeded throughout the whole paschal time, and wishes to compute the year from the first of January.

3. One's own priest, that is, either the pastor or confessor, can give counsel of deferring Communion beyond the paschal time. Therefore they obtain the faculty of quasi-dispensing for a time in this precept, for the utility of the faithful person, reasonably understood. For the utility of the faithful person, I say, for counsel is not given except about a better thing. Therefore it is not a faculty of dispensing properly so called, for a cause almost excusing: they can concede only a spiritually useful dispensation. And scarcely any reason is conceived to be other than that which is gathered from present indisposition or lesser disposition, as if someone remains doubtful in faith.

But the time is defined by the utility itself. If faith must be restored, it could even be quite long.

Practically, however, this faculty is benignly accepted concerning a true dispensation, which, even outside the sacrament of Penance, is conceded by the confessor. Without a dispensation made, even a small delay is judged grave.

— The paschal time regularly runs from Palm Sunday to Low Sunday inclusive. Yet it is lawful for local Ordinaries, "if the circumstances of persons and places so require, to anticipate this time even for all their faithful, not however before the fourth Sunday of Lent, or to prorogue it, not however beyond the feast of the Most Holy Trinity" (c. 859, §2). This requirement will arise, for example, from received usage, or even from a lesser supply of confessors. For one must strive greatly that fitting time can be spent in hearing those who only once in the year, or rarely, are accustomed to use the sacraments, so that they may receive true refreshment of soul.

Therefore, in the manner of a synodal or particular law of that place, the paschal time can be enlarged by the bishop within the said limits. This law, according to general principles, will also benefit travelers.

— The Place of Paschal Communion. Now, what is notable, the precept of paschal Communion can be satisfied in any place. Yet the faithful are to be counseled that "each should satisfy it in his own parish; and those who have satisfied it in another parish should take care to make their own pastor certain concerning the fulfilled precept" (c. 859, §3).

The word "take care," placed absolutely, signifies a command, which however the context shows to be light. Nevertheless some already, for example Cappello, I, n. 475, make the matter one of counsel.

The words "in one's own parish" in themselves have a broader force than "in the parochial church," especially since they are opposed to satisfaction in another parish, which certainly, from §1 itself, where no place is defined for fulfilling the precept, is understood of every oratory of another parish. Therefore the legislator seems to intend this: that by Communion made in one's own domicile, a good example be given to the other inhabitants; and they will lack this edification if the sacraments are received outside the parish.

— The Office of Parents, etc. Prudently and most opportunely the Code warns that the obligation of the impubes also and especially "falls upon those who have care of them"; and it names parents, to whom the Christian instruction of children has been divinely committed; tutors, who must take the place of parents; the confessor, insofar as he is at the same time a spiritual father, or at least from charity must warn penitents concerning their obligation; teachers, both as neighbors bound by fraternal correction, and as delegated by parents; the pastor, as shepherd to whom, in c. 854, §5, this care has been specially mandated by law (c. 860).

— You will ask how, concerning the age at which children are to be admitted to first Communion, ecclesiastical discipline could vary so greatly.

Many explain the matter because the use of the Most Holy Eucharist does not have necessity of means; but the obligation of a grave precept immediately divine is not demonstrated before the age in which there are many dangers of mortal sin, such as the age of puberty is accustomed to be; and the determination of the beginning of the obligation, just as the determination of frequency, was left to the Church by its Spouse and Author. Cf. Lehmkuhl, I, 200 sqq. We have preferred to say that true necessity of means, in reality or in desire, does not prevent the Church from placing on real reception the conditions required by the common good. The means is then satisfied at least in desire. Cf. n. 402.

N. B. They report in the periodical Hostia, Jan.-Feb. 1921, a response of His Eminence Cardinal Gasparri, from which the use of reason in cc. 854, 859, and 906 is to be understood as such as suffices for committing venial sin, and the capacity for mortal sin is not required. Thus indeed it will have to be said by those who think each capacity can be separated: which we see denied by St. Thomas in 1, 2, q. 89, art. 6.

— By express canon 861 we are warned that the precept of receiving Communion is by no means satisfied by a sacrilegious Communion. How this is combined with the doctrine which denies that interior acts can be commanded by the Church, we saw in tome I, n. 254, b.

— Communion in the Mass of Ordination and on Thursday in the Supper of the Lord. 1. In the Mass of ordination, those advanced to a major order must communicate.

2. The Code says it is expedient that on Thursday of the greater week all clerics, even priests who on that day abstain from offering the sacred sacrifice, be refreshed by the most holy body of Christ in the solemn or conventual Mass (c. 862). And in truth, by a general Communion of this kind, a pious representation of the Supper of the Lord is obtained.

By this counsel the obligation which some clerics can have from liturgical law, of receiving Communion from the bishop, is not removed.

— Frequency to Be Counseled to the Healthy. "Let the faithful be excited to be refreshed frequently, even daily, by the eucharistic bread according to the norms handed down in the Apostolic decrees; and let those assisting at Mass, being rightly disposed, communicate not only by spiritual affection but also by sacramental reception of the Most Holy Eucharist." Thus c. 863, which therefore: 1. wishes the frequent, indeed daily, use of the Most Holy Eucharist to be commended by priests; 2. inculcates that the norms handed down in the decrees of the Apostolic See be observed: among which the decree Sacra Tridentina Synodus, December 20, 1905, of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, holds the chief place. To that decree are added: the decree of May 30, 1905, conceding indulgences to prayer for the propagation of daily Communion; the decree of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, February 14, 1906, dispensing from the condition of weekly confession as many as use quasi-daily Communion; the encyclical letter of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, April 10, 1907, concerning a triduan supplication to be celebrated yearly for spreading the use of daily Communion; the encyclical letter Editae saepe, May 26, 1910, on account of the secular solemnities of St. Charles Borromeo, in the second part ¹; 3. but especially confirms and authentically interprets c. 6, sess. XXII of the Council of Trent as a true desire: "The holy synod would indeed desire that in each Mass the faithful present should communicate not only by spiritual affection but also by sacramental reception of the Eucharist, so that a more abundant fruit of this most holy sacrifice may come to them."

¹ All these are had in Per., II, 68-70; IV, 177; III, 80-84; V, 152-154. Cf. also the dissertation, II, 77-88.

— But the moral norms to be observed seem able to be brought together briefly in this way: a) the question concerning special dispositions required for communicating daily has been raised inopportunely. For that doubt takes its origin from diminution of piety and the Jansenian plague; it has had the effect of distancing from the sacred table; and pious and learned theologians have taught that "there is no precept of the Church concerning greater dispositions for daily Communion than for weekly or monthly Communion" (decree Sacra Trid. Syn., III, 3); b) the right mind necessary for eucharistic use is this: that a supernatural reason induce one to communicate, not however some human respect, which would impel one to Communion because others do this, because thus the custom of the house bears; or vanity, by which praise or fame of devotion or piety would be sought. Although a substantially pure intention can be mixed with some human consideration; c) that purity suffices by which one is immune from mortal sins. Nor are those few to be heard in any way who, contrary to what both the immediately preceding and immediately following words demonstrate, interpret the sentence n. IV, 3°, "it suffices nevertheless that they be free from mortal sins, with the purpose of never sinning in the future," as if there were required a purpose of fleeing every sin, even venial. The whole spirit, as it were, of the decree abhors this interpretation, by which flight from venial sin is said to be the fruit of daily Communion, far from being the prerequisite disposition; d) according to the powers, condition, and offices of the one receiving the sacred banquet, careful preparation and suitable thanksgiving are to be employed; e) for counsel, one's own confessor is to be approached, "so that frequent and daily Communion may be done with greater prudence and be increased by more abundant merit" (Sacra Trid. Syn., IV, 5°).

Here also return the things already said concerning the necessity of taking care that everywhere it be intact for all to consult their own devotion, and to approach the Most Holy Eucharist or abstain from it, and that an easy opportunity of confession before Communion be supplied to all.

— Frequency Necessary or to Be Counseled to the Sick. 1. Concerning the sick who are not dangerously lying ill, the things said above, nn. 387, 396, return. In themselves no special rules about these are to be proposed. By the twofold canon concerning the secret carrying of the Most Holy Eucharist, and concerning the use of the Most Holy Eucharist after drink or medicine has been taken, the frequent refreshment of the sick has been rendered much easier. And because the sacraments are for men, so great a solace of the afflicted, which true and complete worship in itself accompanies, is to be preferred to the greater exterior honor which the Most Holy Eucharist before obtained from public carrying. Moreover it is necessary that we conform ourselves, our own persuasion having been laid aside, to the discipline which recent instructions of the Holy See favor.

2. Concerning those lying dangerously ill, or even concerning those who because of a cause foreign to disease are placed in danger of death, the Code, c. 864, decrees or permits these things: a) it sanctions or confirms the precept of receiving Holy Communion; b) the controversy which existed about this matter having been suppressed, it permits, indeed greatly counsels, that he who, free from danger, has received Communion, should communicate again on the same day, when brought into danger of life; c) but on distinct days it permits and says it is becoming that Holy Viaticum be administered several times, according to the counsel of a prudent confessor. Several times, and therefore even daily, if the confessor judges this expedient. And in itself daily eating of the heavenly bread is to be urged more for those who must be comforted by the proximate hope of heaven; d) by a most opportune warning, it forbids that Holy Viaticum be deferred too much; and it commits to the careful vigilance of those who have care of souls that the sick be refreshed by Viaticum while fully in possession of themselves (cc. 864, 865).

— Yet the sick can be prohibited from Communion by a certain or probable danger of exterior irreverence. The Roman Ritual, t. 4, c. 4, n. 4, warns that care must diligently be taken "lest Viaticum be given to those from whom, because of continual coughing or some other similar disease, some indecency with injury to so great a sacrament can be feared." Wherefore it is not lawful to give Communion to those who suffer from vomiting, unless a skilled man or experience has taught that serious danger of vomiting up the sacred species is absent. If a skilled man is lacking, an interval of some hours, for instance six, seems to be awaited. With those delirious, experience can be taken by first handing over an unconsecrated particle. St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 292.

But the species rejected by vomiting, if they have remained incorrupt, are to be adored; and being again received, they again confer grace, since there is a new eating of the body of Christ. Lugo, Euch., 12, 53.

But if because of nausea they are not received, carefully separated, they are to be kept in a sacred place until, perfect corruption having occurred, they are thrown into the sacrarium. But that swifter corruption may occur, it does not seem prohibited to pour some quantity of water over the sacred species.

But if, although they do not appear, the species could be contained in the vomit, "let the vomit be burned and the ashes be sent into the sacrarium." Rubric, De defectibus missae, n. 14. How long the species can remain incorrupt in the stomach, cf. immediately below.

A different reason of indecency arises a) from lack of exterior penance, in a scandalous sinner who has been seized by a sudden disease: conditional absolution indeed, and conditional Extreme Unction, can be given, and in themselves are to be given, but not the Most Holy Eucharist; b) from the infamous place where even a sick person excellently disposed lies: then at least open ministration is forbidden because of the reason of reverence.

— Sacramental grace is conferred from the first eating, even of the first part, since the whole sacrament consists in any eating.

But as long as Christ is present in him, there are some who think that the sacramental grace itself grows in the faithful person, provided he renders his actual disposition more perfect. An increase of disposition is required, because the sacraments give grace according to the disposition of the subject, and it concerns one reception of the sacrament morally. With disposition increased, grace seems to be increased, because the Most Holy Sacrament, in the manner of food, seems to profit more the more it is applied to the subject. But better disposition effects greater application. These things are admitted by many; yet we would not wish to call them certain. Cf. Palmieri, Op. theol., t. IV, nn. 872-875.

Wherefore, in the same opinion, not only he who, having received part of the wine or host with evil disposition, then receives another part well disposed, but also he who disposes himself before the species are consumed, is thought to receive sacramental grace. What obstacle there is, however, we said in n. 208.

Nor is the devotion of him to be faulted who receives a larger matter to be consecrated, with the mind that the species may not be consumed so quickly in the stomach. Yet singularity must be abstained from, and we doubt concerning the sensible efficacy of the means, when it concerns the species of wine, after which has been received, moreover, the corruption of the species of bread is accelerated.

But what must not be doubted is that the intimate presence of the author of all grace brings this about, that the force of impetration ex opere operantis is greatly amplified through that time. Lehmkuhl, II, 151 and cf. 210.

But how long the species can remain incorrupt in the stomach depends greatly on the "digestive" power, so that there are sick persons who reject them almost incorrupt after hours. Nor in a healthy man is the matter plainly established. Today they do not think a great distinction is to be made between a layperson who receives only a smaller host, and a priest, who indeed eats a larger one but together with the species of wine. For the consumption of a small host, they require at least half a quarter of an hour. Dr. van Olfers affirms that the species of wine always perish hardly as soon as they have been received into the stomach. Dr. Capellmann denies this, and therefore thinks that species which have been rejected within half an hour after Communion can never be thrown outside the sacrarium, even if no visible particles are discerned in them. Cf. Medicina pastoralis, pp. 124, 125, 4th Latin ed.

— What is it to eat? Nor is this fully established. Dr. van Olfers thinks that what is received into the mouth is already eaten. Yet for most, eating is the vital transmission of food into the stomach. Therefore eating has begun from the time when food or drink has passed that part of the throat from which ordinarily it can no longer be recalled. From that moment grace seems to be given, although some defer the conferral of grace until some part of the species has been received into the stomach. Cf. Palmieri, Op. theol., t. IV, n. 872.

Hence they counsel that the species not be kept longer in the mouth, that is, not so long that they perish completely in the mouth, which according to several, while others contradict, happens quite quickly. Yet one may doubt about the force of the inference. For he is not thought to eat who spits out at once what he has taken into the mouth; but, in moral estimation, we indeed eat what, put into the mouth in a solid state, we swallow only after it has been dissolved and perhaps chemically changed.

— That greater grace is given in Communion under each species than under one alone is not improbable, although it is rather denied. Cf. Lugo, Euch., d. 12, s. 3.

— Concerning Spiritual Communion. Mere material reception by a non-baptized man, or by an adult communicating involuntarily, having been omitted, the Council of Trent itself, sess. XIII, De Euch., ch. 8, distinguished merely sacramental reception, which belongs to him who, capable, receives the sacrament indisposed or with the obstacle of sin; sacramental and spiritual reception at once, belonging to him who, rightly proved, approaches this divine table; and spiritual reception only of those "who, eating by desire that heavenly bread set before them, by living faith, which works through love, perceive its fruit and utility." Besides a common act of charity, this practice contains a special reason of cultivating the Most Holy Sacrament, and hence merits peculiar praise.

Moreover three things compose spiritual Communion: an act of living faith in the real presence of Christ; an act of charity or also, as the case may be, of contrition; and observe that in him who is conscious of mortal sin, an act of charity cannot be true unless it has passed into formal contrition; finally, an act of desire of receiving Christ sacramentally, if it could be done, and of intimately uniting oneself to Christ. Lest the desire be nugatory, it is necessary that something, at least in a broad sense, obstruct present sacramental use. Nor can he with an absolute will desire the sacrament or the fruit of the sacrament who, at least by the help of perfect contrition, has not acquired for himself the state of grace. With a conditioned will, not even a sinner is prohibited.

This devotion, so greatly commended, can be exercised very frequently. It is done especially usefully during the Communion of Mass: then the circumstances themselves foster apt dispositions, and he who, while he cannot in reality, communicates at least by affection, can hope for himself those more abundant fruits of the sacrifice which the holy Synod of Trent, sess. XXII, ch. 6, affirms to remain in those who communicate sacramentally (cf. Lehmkuhl, II, 194).

— 1. Strictly, no one communicates in favor of another, since no one eats for another, and the opus operatum of every sacrament benefits only the subject. But for another living person, one can offer Holy Communion in this way, that by the good and therefore meritorious and satisfactory act of approaching the sacred table he wishes to help him spiritually, or, after sacramental reception, to pour out prayers for him, which then are poured out with greater fervor and efficacy. But for the deceased one can communicate insofar as, by way of suffrage, he offers for him his own act operantis as impetratory and satisfactory, or applies to him the indulgences joined with Communion. Cf. St. Thomas, 3 p., q. 79, art. 7.

— I. The sacramental grace of the Most Holy Eucharist is for the refreshment of our soul, to be transformed into Christ through charity, whose habit it increases and whose acts it excites.

II. Conditions of Approach. 1. The baptized who are not unworthy and who approach decently have a right to this spiritual refreshment. Solicitude for the common good has led the Church to require of children, even in danger of death, that they distinguish the body of Christ from common food and reverently adore it; but outside danger of death, that they know at least the mysteries to be believed by necessity of means, and, according to the measure of their age, approach devoutly. These children not only can, but also must, be admitted. They are held by the paschal precept; and when parents or tutors are negligent, the violation of that precept is imputed to them. Confessors, parents, or those who hold their place judge concerning the sufficient disposition of children, while the office of watching is committed to the pastor, lest the unprepared approach, and so that those disposed may communicate as soon as possible.

2. The state of grace is required by divine precept; and by at least ecclesiastical precept it must be procured through confession, unless, with a confessor lacking, necessity of communicating urges.

3. The natural fast is to be observed from midnight, so that from without nothing which has the ratio of food or drink is taken in the manner of eating or drinking, not of breathing or attraction through the nose. Intention, which generally changes nothing, is to be attended to where a thing is drawn in or mixed with saliva. The Missal, De defectibus, IX, 3, also tolerates a little drop of water which, in washing the mouth, apart from intention, has entered the throat and stomach. And in a positive doubt, or a negative doubt on each side, whether something has been taken from midnight onward, it will be lawful to communicate.

The law ceases for the sick who are in danger of death; indeed for the healthy who are placed in urgent danger of death; and for those who otherwise cannot protect the Most Holy Eucharist from danger of profanation or loss. To this belongs the consumption of fragments in Mass, after the ablution and in the sacristy, as long as the priest is clothed in the sacred vestments.

The Code (c. 858, §2) allows that by the prudent counsel of the confessor, those who for a month have been truly sick without certain hope that they will quickly, within three or four days, recover, communicate once or twice in the week, after they have taken some medicine or something in the manner of drink. Broader concessions are made through the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments or of Religious.

Neither a stain of the body, nor involuntary pollution, nor the use of marriage in itself impedes Communion. But external signs of honor in clothing, etc., are owed to the reverence of the sacrament.

III. Necessity of Communion. 1. From the words of Christ, "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man... you shall not have life in you" (John 6:54), there is gathered a divinely imposed necessity of receiving the Eucharist sometimes, not of precept alone, but also of means, in reality or in desire. Yet not a few admit only a necessity of precept. And the common opinion urges a necessity of divine law of receiving Viaticum in danger of death. This is more certain if life had to be resumed after mortal sin. Besides, the more frequent use of the sacrament becomes practically necessary for overcoming temptations.

2. From the precept of the Church, which according to reasons of the common good can define the beginning and frequency of the obligation, all who have attained the use of reason must once in the year, at least in paschal time, worthily receive Holy Communion. One's own pastor or confessor, because of the utility of the faithful person, can permit delay beyond the paschal time. That time regularly runs from Palm Sunday to Low Sunday; but local Ordinaries can, because of the utility of the flock, enlarge the time, so that it is extended from the fourth Sunday of Lent to Trinity Sunday.

The paschal precept can be fulfilled in any place: nevertheless Communion in one's own parish is counseled; he who has acted otherwise should take care to make his own pastor certain concerning the fulfilled precept.

3. Those promoted to major orders must receive Holy Communion in the Mass of ordination.

IV. Counsels. 1. Canon 862 desires that clerics, and also priests who on Thursday in the Supper of the Lord do not celebrate, be refreshed by the most holy body of Christ in the solemn Mass.

2. Canon 863 wishes priests to commend frequent, indeed daily, Communion to the faithful, especially in the Mass at which they are present. For the faithful, purity from mortal sin suffices, without necessity of special disposition. Yet the confessor is to be approached for counsel; he will be solicitous about preparation and thanksgiving, and will also take care that a frail penitent not begin to frequent the sacrament of the Eucharist in such a way that by some human fear he is placed in danger of communicating sacrilegiously. Nor do special rules bind the sick, except the care of exterior reverence, which can be impeded by lack of exterior penance in a scandalous sinner, by the infamous place where someone lies, and by bodily disease.

3. But it is to be desired that an occasion of Communion even daily be offered to the sick themselves. Holy Viaticum, which must be received by all in danger of death even extrinsic, is not to be deferred long, and can be received on the same day on which, while still free from danger, someone has already communicated.

V. 1. Spiritual Communion means the desire of worthy reception of the sacrament, and of spiritual refreshment, in him who is at least broadly impeded from the sacrament.

2. Although no one communicates for another, nevertheless someone can fruitfully help another living person by the good work of Communion, and apply to the dead the indulgence of Holy Communion.

190. Note. A twofold reception of the Eucharist is customarily distinguished: one sacramental, the other spiritual. Sacramental reception is the eating or drinking of the Eucharistic species. Spiritual reception is the desire for sacramental reception when the latter is in fact impossible because of reasons standing in the way. All ascetical authors earnestly commend the exercise of spiritual Communion as very fruitful ex opere operantis through charity. This exercise is fittingly performed by eliciting the following acts: 1. an act of living faith in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist; 2. fervent thanksgiving for the institution of this sacrament; 3. contrition for all sins committed; 4. an ardent desire for union with the Eucharistic Christ. In what follows we shall no longer speak of spiritual Communion, but of sacramental Communion, in the reception of which dispositions both of soul and of body are required; these are to be treated separately.

1547. A) In one receiving the Most Holy Eucharist, besides faith and immunity from censures, there is required first of all the STATE OF GRACE; both because the Eucharist is a Sacrament of the living, which presupposes first grace in the subject, and because it is spiritual food, which cannot profit one spiritually dead.

The TRIDENTINE SYNOD speaks aptly to the matter:¹ "If it is not fitting," it says, "for anyone to approach any sacred functions unless holily, certainly the more the holiness and divinity of this heavenly Sacrament is known to a Christian man, the more diligently he ought to beware lest he approach to receive it without great reverence and holiness, especially since we read those words full of fear in the Apostle: He who eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Body of the Lord. Wherefore, to one wishing to communicate, that precept must be recalled into memory: Let a man prove himself. But ecclesiastical custom declares that this proving is necessary, so that no one conscious to himself of mortal sin, however contrite he may seem to himself, ought to approach the Holy Eucharist without previous sacramental confession; and this holy Synod has decreed that this is perpetually to be observed by all Christians, even by priests upon whom it has fallen by office to celebrate, provided they do not lack the opportunity of a confessor: but if, necessity urging, a priest has celebrated without previous confession, let him confess as soon as possible."

But indeed these prescriptions of Trent ask for a fuller explanation for themselves. Whence let there be the following:

1548. Principles. I. No one conscious to himself of mortal sin, however contrite he may seem to himself, can approach the Holy Eucharist WITHOUT PREVIOUS SACRAMENTAL CONFESSION. For the Apostle says: "Let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of that bread." But it is clear, from ecclesiastical custom, that confession itself is that necessary proving.²

There are indeed some, but these are few, who say that this precept is only ecclesiastical; but "the common and true opinion teaches that this PRECEPT is DIVINE. The reason is that, on the one hand, it is clear that from the precept of Christ proving must be premised, since the Apostle testifies that he received it from the Lord; on the other hand, from Trent it is clearly evident that this required proving is confession...; for the Council did not say that this precept of confession had been introduced by ecclesiastical custom, but that by it such a precept had been declared; whence confession is commanded from divine precept. - Nor is it opposed to this that it is called a precept of the Apostle, because in reality it is a precept of Christ promulgated through the Apostle."³

It is said 1. of mortal sin, because venial sins, however many they are, just as they do not deprive one of divine grace, so neither do they prohibit someone from approaching the sacred Table.⁴

It is said 2. conscious to himself, that is, morally certain concerning a grave sin committed, which has not been remitted through the Sacrament of Penance. - But in doubt whether it has been committed, St. Alphonsus teaches that the following distinction must be made: "If someone doubts whether he has sinned gravely or not, then he can licitly approach Communion without previous confession, whether the doubt is negative or positive, it sufficing for him, that he may more safely receive the fruit of the Sacrament, to premise contrition...; because the precept of prohibition does not begin to possess, except after the man is conscious of his sin. On the contrary, if someone is certain concerning a sin committed, then he cannot communicate unless he is certain that he has been proved through confession; because then the precept of prohibition certainly possesses in him."⁵

1549. It is asked: Whether if someone after confession REMEMBERS some mortal sin inculpably forgotten, he is held to confess it before Communion?

Resp. It is controverted. The first opinion, most common among authors, affirms, because this seems more conformable to the words of Trent. "But the second opinion denies.... and, the intrinsic foundation having been considered, it seems altogether consonant with reason, and it seems very probable to others. The reason is that he who premised confession to Communion has already fulfilled the precept of confession, by force of which the forgotten sin has already been indirectly remitted, and the penitent already exists as proved.... For in Trent only this is prescribed, that the penitent approach Communion justified not by contrition alone, but also through confession; but here he has already been justified also through confession, and therefore is not held at once before Communion to confess again. But the practice of the faithful which is opposed is not to be held as a certain rule of obligation, but rather as a pious and laudable usage, which, for the rest, is to be counseled to all as often as some cause in opposition does not suggest something else."⁶

But neither is such a faithful person, according to the common opinion, held to elicit an act of contrition. For since he has been justified, no foundation appears from which contrition is required; not from precept, because this is nowhere found prescribed; not for deleting the sin, because this has already been deleted through the confession previously made.⁷

1550. II. It is licit to receive the Eucharist, with contrition alone premised without confession, when there is present a NECESSITY of celebrating or communicating, and OPPORTUNITY OF A CONFESSOR is lacking. Thus Trent, and the reason is that a positive precept does not oblige with so great an inconvenience.

It is said 1. WHEN NECESSITY IS PRESENT; but by necessity is not understood great devotion, nor the poverty of the priest, unless the poverty were very grave; but urgent necessity is understood. Hence:

1. Danger of death excuses, namely when a host is to be consecrated for one dying; likewise, danger of infamy or scandal, for example if someone were already found at the rail of those communicating, and could not depart without being noticed by others. The same must be said if, Viaticum having been brought to the sick person, confession, because of shortness of time, could not be completed without danger of death or infamy. In which case the priest, having heard some sin, ought to absolve the dying person and offer him Communion, with the obligation imposed on him of completing confession if he recovers. Yet here it must be carefully noticed that scandal is then said to occur when occasion is given for detracting or rashly judging, but not when only occasion for wonder is given.

2. The obligation from office of celebrating excuses, so that the people may hear Mass, provided there is not another who may celebrate. - But one who is not held from office to provide that the people be present at Mass cannot celebrate, even if he himself or the people, on a feast day, would have to lack Mass. For the precept of confessing, which is divine, is to be preferred to the ecclesiastical precept of hearing Mass. But whether, opportunity of a confessor being lacking, someone can communicate with contrition alone, so that he may satisfy the Paschal precept, is controverted: very commonly they affirm, from the fact that the Paschal precept is also divine; yet others deny, and say that the precept of Paschal Communion can be deferred until opportunity of a confessor is had. Each opinion is probable.

3. The necessity of completing a Sacrifice already begun excuses, for example if a priest, while celebrating, remembers a mortal sin. Yet here a distinction must be made. If he remembers the sin after consecration, the Mass is not to be interrupted so that he may confess, as St. Thomas teaches, and as is expressly had in the Rubric. But if he remembers before consecration, and especially before the Canon, he ought to confess if a confessor is present, and if he can effect this without note of infamy, for example in a solemn Mass, during the chant or during the sacred sermon. But if he cannot confess, and no danger of infamy is to be feared, he is more probably held to desist from Mass. Thus many, and this seems to be clear from the Rubric saying: "If before consecration the priest remembers that he is in mortal sin..., if scandal is not feared, he ought to abandon the Mass begun." We have said more probably, because it is not certain whether the Rubric by the word ought imposes a grave precept. For the rest, the Doctors well notice that in such a case it can scarcely happen that the note of infamy be avoided.⁸

It is said 2. AND OPPORTUNITY OF A CONFESSOR IS LACKING; but it is judged to be lacking, not, as some wish, if that one is absent to whom he is accustomed and would desire to confess, or to whom he would confess more devoutly or usefully; but if no suitable one is present, and one absent cannot be approached without great difficulty. - Moreover, this difficulty is to be estimated by considering both the weakness, age, and occupations of the person, and other circumstances, such as weather, shortness of time, distance, etc. Regularly, a distance of two hours excuses; and a much smaller distance, if the priest would be about to celebrate shortly.⁹

1551. It is asked: Whether one who has a RESERVED sin, in defect of a confessor endowed with faculty, is held to confess to a simple confessor, that he may communicate?

Resp. 1. If he has no other sin than the reserved one, from the common opinion, he is not held; so that, necessity urging, he can communicate with contrition. - Nevertheless, if he has only attrition, he is held to confess the venial sins which he has, or a mortal sin already confessed on another occasion, so that thus, at least indirectly, he may be absolved from the reserved one. And he can do this same thing, although he has contrition, so that he may receive the Eucharist more safely (cf. n. 1283, 3).

Resp. 2. If he has reserved and non-reserved sins, we say with the most common and more probable opinion that he is held to confession. The reason is that, since the divine precept of premising confession to Communion urges, confession ought to be made at least formally entire, if it cannot be made materially entire. But, in this second case, from an opinion truly probable, by itself it suffices for the penitent that he declare the non-reserved sins. We say by itself; because by accident he is sometimes held also to declare the reserved sins, so that the confessor can rightly judge concerning the disposition, for example if he is relapsed in reserved sins, or in a proximate occasion of sinning (cf. n. 1778).

1552. III. A priest who, necessity urging, has celebrated without previous confession, is held to confess AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. It is an ecclesiastical law openly expressed in Trent.

It is said 1. A priest; for, from the most common and more probable opinion, this precept of confessing as soon as possible does not oblige laymen. The reason is both that the Council names priests alone, and that the same reason does not run for laymen as for priests. For in priests the necessity of communicating without confession occurs more easily, and therefore they themselves would more easily, under the pretext of this necessity, celebrate with confession omitted.¹⁰

It is said 2. is held; because Trent does not express counsel, but precept. This is evident from proposition 38 condemned by Alexander VII, which sounds thus: "The mandate of Trent made to a priest sacrificing from necessity with mortal sin, of confessing as soon as possible, is counsel, not precept." - But whether this precept obliges a priest who remembers the sin after consecration is controverted. Others deny, because the Rubric, speaking of him, says only: let him be contrite with the purpose of confessing. "This opinion does not seem improbable, but the contrary is more common and perhaps more probable, because then the case supposed by the Council is already verified, namely that he now celebrates in sin and without confession; so much the more because in that phrase of the Rubric, of confessing, the word as soon as possible is easily understood, already expressed by the Rubric a little before."¹¹

It is said 3. as soon as possible, that is, within three days, according to the common interpretation of authors. For in ecclesiastical laws that phrase as soon as possible, or another similar word, must be understood morally, and therefore, as they commonly teach, it is extended to the space of three days. "Yet the authors notice that it can happen that a priest, by accident, is held from this precept to confess on the same day, and perhaps in the same hour, for example if he then had a confessor, whom he will afterwards lack for several days, or if tomorrow the same necessity of celebrating would urge, and he could not confess."¹²

1553. It is asked: Whether a priest is held to confess as soon as possible if, confession having been omitted, he celebrated SACRILEGIOUSLY?

Resp. Distinguish. 1. If without necessity, or with opportunity of a confessor given, he celebrated, the most common and truer opinion denies that he is held. The reason is that the precept of Trent is ordained toward instilling fear in those who, under the pretext of necessity, defer confession; but not in those celebrating sacrilegiously, for whom this precept would very rarely be profitable. For those who, with the divine precept contemned, dare knowingly to celebrate in sin, will more easily contemn an ecclesiastical precept.

2. But if, necessity urging and opportunity of a confessor lacking, he celebrated not contrite, he is indeed held to confess as soon as possible; because the precept of Trent does not distinguish between a priest having or not having contrition, but speaks of any priest whatever celebrating from necessity.¹³

1554. B) Besides the state of grace, which is altogether necessary, there is required in one receiving the Holy Eucharist IMMUNITY FROM VENIAL SINS, and ACTUAL DEVOTION, namely so that a richer harvest of graces may be gathered from the reception of the Sacrament. - For the purer the soul is, the more closely it is joined with the Lord, who is Purity itself; and the greater devotion with which it is borne toward Him, the more lovingly it is treated by the Lover of souls and heaped with richer graces.

Moreover, that actual devotion is best promoted through acts of living faith, sincere humility, ardent desire, and burning charity.

And this is why the people are often to be admonished "with what PREPARATION, and with how great religion and piety of soul, and also humble bearing of body, they ought to approach so divine a Sacrament. Moreover, those communicating are to be warned that, the Sacrament having been received, they should not immediately depart from the church, or converse, or at once look around with wandering eyes...; but, with the devotion that is fitting, they should remain for some time in prayer, GIVING THANKS TO GOD for so singular a benefit, and also for the most holy Passion of the Lord, in memory of which this mystery is celebrated and received."¹

1555. Questions. Q. 1. Whether to approach the Eucharist WITH VENIAL SIN is a new venial sin?

Resp. 1. To approach with habitual venial sin probably is not a new sin. "The reason is both that it would rather be a defect of perfect reverence than a positive irreverence; and because the very will of receiving the Eucharist and its effect is a certain virtual detestation of venial sins, by which faults are removed, so that they by no means impede the fruit of the Sacrament."²

Resp. 2. To approach with an actual concomitant venial sin, for example because of vainglory, or with a purpose of lying afterwards, is a sin; because such a communicating person inflicts a positive injury on the Sacrament. Thus commonly and more truly, against some.³

Q. 2. Whether an actual venial sin IMPEDES the fruit of the Sacrament?

Resp. From the far more common opinion, it does not impede the principal effect, namely an increase of habitual grace; although it impedes some fruits, for example fervor of charity, and from this it is why several priests are observed who celebrate daily in grace, and nevertheless profit nothing. The reason is that venial sin does not fight with habitual grace, nor with any increase whatever of it, and therefore does not impede it (cf. n. 1548).

Q. 3. When does the Eucharist produce its effects in one receiving it who is rightly disposed?

Resp. 1. Grace is given in the very act of eating, namely when passage is made from the mouth into the stomach. Whence "the species are not to be retained in the mouth so long until they entirely perish; because then Christ would not be eaten, nor would the grace of the Sacrament be conferred"; just as it is not conferred if someone dies while he retains the host in his mouth.⁴

Resp. 2. It is very probable that, if the disposition of the subject becomes better, grace is always increased as long as the sacramental species endure in the stomach. "The reason is that this Sacrament was instituted after the manner of food; whence, just as food nourishes the body during the whole time in which it remains in the stomach, so likewise, whenever the Eucharist remains in the body, it nourishes the soul by increasing grace."⁵

Q. 4. What if a PRIEST should dispose himself during the consumption?

Resp. "If someone had consumed part of the wine or host while indisposed, and then disposed himself, he would still receive grace in the consumption of the other part; because even then the Eucharist has the power of conferring grace ex opere operato. Some also probably say that this would happen if he disposed himself before the species are consumed in the stomach."⁶

On the part of the body, two things are required: 1. fasting; 2. cleanliness and decent habit.

First we shall speak concerning the obligation of fasting, then concerning the causes excusing from it.

1556. Principles. I. For the licit consumption of the Eucharist NATURAL FASTING is required, namely that the one about to communicate has consumed nothing of food or drink from midnight. - This is clear both from universal custom, which has constantly flourished from the time of the Apostles to the present, and from various Councils, especially from Constance.⁷ But this precept was sanctioned on account of the reverence due to the Sacrament, and on account of its signification, "namely that it may be given to be understood that Christ, who is the reality of this Sacrament, and His charity ought first to be founded in our hearts."⁸

But although this precept is not of divine law, but only of ecclesiastical law, nevertheless it does not admit smallness of matter: "because the precept is not now of approaching the Eucharist fasting, but of not approaching after food or drink; but he who communicates after any very small part whatever already communicates after food or drink. Thus all."⁹

1557. II. For breaking the natural fast THREE things are required: 1. that what is consumed come from outside; 2. that it have the nature of food or drink; 3. that it be consumed after the manner of eating or drinking. - Thus authors commonly.¹⁰

It is required 1. That what is consumed come from outside; for, as St. Thomas observes, what comes from within is not eaten, and therefore does not harm the natural fast. - Hence, he can communicate who has swallowed saliva, or phlegm, or blood flowing from the interior head or gums, even if he has swallowed it purposely. - But indeed he cannot communicate who at night placed sugar in his mouth, and after midnight swallowed some; nor he who swallowed blood flowing from the fingers, or tears flowing from the eyes; nor he who, having fallen or been thrown into a river, swallowed water.¹¹

It is required 2. That it have the nature of food or drink; for according to the more common and more probable opinion, only digestible things break the fast, but not indigestible things. Hence: hair, metals, crystal, nails, silk or woolen threads, little fruit-stones altogether cleaned, because they are not digested, do not have the nature of food. - The contrary must be said of paper, straw, linen threads, medicinal powder, wax, earth or chalk, etc., which, altered in the stomach, can be converted into the substance of a human being.¹²

It is required 3. That it be consumed after the manner of eating or drinking. Therefore every digestible thing which is deliberately transmitted into the stomach breaks the fast, although it is transmitted in an unaccustomed manner, for example through the nostrils; because such an action is morally equivalent to drinking or eating. But that which is drawn in unintentionally, after the manner of breathing or saliva, does not break the fast. - Hence, the fast is not broken if someone, breathing, accidentally draws in flies, water, snow, etc.; but it is broken if someone draws in such things purposely. Likewise, it is not broken by tobacco taken through the nostrils, nor by the smoke of tobacco, or by juice of camphor, nor by tobacco rubbed with the teeth; provided the juice is spat out, and if anything is swallowed beyond intention, it is mixed with saliva and passes as such, not as food. But although chewing of this kind does not impede Communion, nevertheless it is indecent, nor is it easily excused from venial sin.¹³

1558. Questions. Q. 1. Whether to swallow REMAINS OF FOOD left in the mouth, or DROPS OF WATER mixed with saliva, breaks the fast?

Resp. The first opinion, not improbable, denies simply, whether this happens accidentally or purposely. The reason is both that the passing down of such remains is not to be regarded as a new eating, but as part of the preceding eating; and because they are consumed not after the manner of food, but after the manner of saliva. And the Rubric of the Missal indeed seems to favor this opinion. But the second opinion, more common and more probable, says that the fast is broken if they are swallowed purposely, but not if accidentally. The reason is that the passing down of remains of this kind, when it happens by design, seems to be a new eating. Yet no obligation is given of applying diligence to extracting those remains from the teeth; "for otherwise this obligation would be liable to innumerable scruples and perplexities, to which certainly the Church is not presumed to have wished to oblige."¹⁴ Hence also the fast is not broken, according to the Rubric, "if, in washing the mouth, a drop of water is swallowed beyond intention"; provided it does not pass down in a great quantity, but mixed with saliva, which cannot be avoided. And the same must be said of the remains of wine, or of broth, which someone has tasted.¹⁵

Q. 2. Whether it is licit, immediately after the Eucharist has been received, to consume an ABLUTION, by which the particle may be swallowed more easily?

Resp. Affirmatively, where such a custom flourishes, or necessity requires it, for example if someone suffers extreme dryness of mouth. But in this case, "although the ablution is swallowed before the host or fragments of the host, nevertheless this does not obstruct the fast. The reason is that the violation is not judged morally to have preceded Communion; for the precept of the fast is that nothing be consumed before the reception of the Eucharist; but when the Eucharist is consumed together at the same time with the ablution, then that whole thing from the ablution and particles is consumed by one single consumption; whence it is well verified that the violation of the fast did not precede Communion."¹⁶

Q. 3. Whether one who dined before midnight can communicate A LITTLE AFTER, and while the food has not yet been digested?

Resp. This is not prohibited by reason of the fast, since this is truly observed; wherefore, a just cause being present, it can be done.¹⁷

Q. 4. How is the time of MIDNIGHT to be computed?

Resp. It is to be computed physically, not morally. Now, at the first stroke of the hour, midnight is completed; wherefore he cannot communicate who swallows food after the first stroke, but before the last.¹⁸ But the time is rightly determined from public clocks; for, in designating time, the Church follows that rule which publicly directs all human business in individual places.¹⁹ Yet it is licit, at one's choice, to follow true or mean time; indeed the time of another meridian, for example of the metropolis, if the public clocks of the place mark it.²⁰

Q. 5. Whether IN DOUBT whether he has broken the fast, someone can communicate?

Resp. Affirmatively. For the law of fasting is prohibitive, namely forbidding that someone communicate after food has been consumed; wherefore the fact of the broken fast must be proved, that someone may be prohibited from communicating. And as long as the breaking is not established, liberty of communicating possesses. This reason applies both for the case in which you doubt whether you consumed something of food or drink, and for the case in which, certain of the consumption, you doubt whether you consumed it after midnight (cf. n. 49, 2).

Hence the Doctors very commonly affirm that, among several discordant clocks, it is licit to follow the last, for receiving Communion; provided the error is not established, or the clock is not one of those which for the most part err, because these are presumed always to err.²¹ The reason is that individual good clocks generate a probable opinion, and therefore a positive doubt.

Q. 6. Whether it is licit to eat or drink IMMEDIATELY after Communion?

Resp. Formerly fasting after Communion until Sext was prescribed; but this precept has now long since been abrogated. Nevertheless, to eat and drink without cause, while the sacred species still endure in the stomach, where they are judged to endure for a quarter of an hour in priests, is not excused from venial sin. Thus commonly. It was said without cause; because any just cause excuses, for example if the sign for table were given for a Religious.²²

Q. 7. Whether it is licit to SPIT OUT immediately after Communion?

Resp. "All agree that it is indeed fitting that those communicating abstain from spitting out for some interval of time, and the Ritual agrees. - Yet authors say there is no sin in spitting out after Communion, if no fragment of the host has remained in the mouth."²³

1559. The law of the Eucharistic fast, since it is positive and ecclesiastical, sometimes admits an exception, but on account of most grave causes, which can stand either on the part of the Sacrament or on the part of man. The CASES in which the Eucharist can be received by one not fasting are numbered as FOUR:

I. When the Sacrifice must be completed. This can happen in many ways, namely: 1. If the priest notices that he took water for wine, etc.; in which case he ought again to consecrate either each species, or at least the wine, as was said above (n. 1528, II).

2. If it happens that the priest fails after consecration; in which case another priest, even one not fasting, is held to complete the Sacrifice. 3. If the priest, after the consecration even of one species, remembers that he is not fasting, he is held to finish the Mass. It was said after consecration; for if he remembers before it, he is held to desist, as often as this can be done without scandal or infamy. - 4. If the priest, after the ablution has been consumed, notices some relics of the same Sacrifice, he ought to consume them, as we have said (n. 1542, q. 4).¹

II. When grave irreverence against the Sacrament is to be avoided; for example if there is danger that the sacred Host may perish, or be corrupted, or be badly handled by infidels or heretics; because the precept of preventing such irreverence prevails over the precept of fasting, as they commonly teach. - Whence, if a priest is then absent, a layman can consume the sacred Host; indeed, in such a case, a priest can offer sacred particles to laymen who are not fasting.²

III. When danger of infamy or scandal is to be avoided, which would arise from the omission of Mass or Communion; for in this case the natural precept urges, which prevails over the ecclesiastical precept. Now, the case would be if a priest celebrating in public remembered before consecration that he was not fasting, and could not depart without scandal. - Similarly, if on a Sunday or feast day Mass had to be celebrated for the people, and the pastor, not fasting, had no other fasting priest to celebrate. Yet it is supposed in this last case that no one knows the pastor is not fasting; otherwise a greater scandal would arise, at least among the simple, from the celebration than from the omission of Mass.³

IV. When the article or danger of death is imminent, from whatever cause the danger proceeds, whether from natural illness, or from the sentence of a judge (cf. n. 1565). - It is also licit for one not fasting to celebrate in order to avoid danger of death, provided this is not demanded in contempt of the Church.⁴

And here a fifth case can be added, from a response given by the S. C. de Prop. Fide to the Vicar Apostolic of Eastern Tonkin (February 13, 1806), which has itself thus: "Salt having been tasted beforehand by catechumens in the conferral of Baptism, although the fast seems to be broken, still there is no doubt that, Baptism having been received, they can be admitted to Holy Communion, indeed must be."⁵

1560. Questions. Q. 1. Whether and HOW OFTEN in the same infirmity it is licit for a sick person not fasting to REPEAT Communion after the manner of Viaticum?

Resp. 1. "It is not doubted by the Doctors that Viaticum can be received several times, even during the same infirmity, since this Sacrament ought to be received not only for satisfaction of the precept, but also for strength against temptations, which in death are stronger and more dangerous. And this not only if a new danger supervenes, but also if the same danger endures. Thus commonly."⁶ And Benedict XIV⁷ exhorts Bishops that they even "decree a penalty against pastors who, when the sick devoutly ask, refuse to carry the Eucharist again and a third time on false pretexts."

Resp. 2. The common opinion is that an interval of eight days, or even six, must be interposed between Communions. Nevertheless, others not improbably teach that Viaticum can already be repeated on the following day, in the case in which the sick person had been accustomed to frequent Communion and danger of death was imminent. Indeed several authors universally admit that Communion can be offered on any day if circumstances suggest it.⁸ Thus in monasteries, and where less apparatus is required, it can more easily be conceded. - Particular statutes in this matter are also to be attended to.

Q. 2. Whether a priest can CELEBRATE not fasting, in order to minister Viaticum?

Resp. 1. Affirmatively, if the priest himself, near death, ought to celebrate in order to give himself Viaticum; for then in the same person an ecclesiastical and a divine precept concur, but the latter is to be preferred. Thus commonly.

Resp. 2. If Viaticum is to be given to another, it is controverted. The first probable opinion affirms, because the divine precept of giving and receiving Viaticum is to be preferred to the ecclesiastical precept of observing the fast. - But the second opinion, common and perhaps more probable, denies; because the precept of not celebrating after the consumption of food is also divine as to its substance, namely by reason of the reverence which is due to the Sacrament. But the precept of ministering Viaticum ceases when it cannot be ministered rightly. - Yet otherwise, if the dying person could not be fortified by the Sacrament of Penance or Extreme Unction; for the Eucharist, in this case, will be able to be a Sacrament of necessity, so that he may become contrite from attrite.⁹

Q. 3. Whether sometimes, OUTSIDE DANGER OF DEATH, it is licit to give Communion to a sick person not fasting, who cannot observe the fast, if indeed the illness is going to be long-lasting?

Resp. The common opinion denies, which common practice also confirms, since the Pontiff alone has power to dispense in this most grave law.¹⁰ - Hence, if such a case occurs, the Eucharist, with license of the Bishop, is to be carried at night, so that thus the sick person, immediately after midnight, can communicate fasting. But if this cannot be done, recourse must be had to the Supreme Pontiff for dispensation¹¹ (cf. n. 1881, end).

1561. Principles. I. "No stain of the body BY ITSELF impedes the reception of the Eucharist, since it does little toward moral goodness or malice; yet sometimes BY ACCIDENT it can impede, on account of the effects which follow."¹² - For before all else it is required that one about to receive the Eucharist be immune from every venereal filth. Concerning this matter the following things are to be noted:

1. On account of voluntary pollution which occurred on the same day, even if it has been expiated through the Sacrament of Penance, one must abstain from Communion under venial sin, just as also from celebration, unless a just cause excuses, "as will seem to the prudent confessor," as the Rubric of the Missal speaks.¹³ But on account of involuntary pollution one is not to abstain, unless perhaps from the commotion of the body disturbance of the mind still endures; for to approach with disturbance of this kind is commonly not excused from venial sin, unless some just cause is present, or unless the person strives, as much as he can, to quiet the disturbed mind, and applies diligence that he may approach devoutly, as all reasonably teach.¹⁴

2. The conjugal act, by itself, does not impede worthy Communion, if the debt was asked or rendered from a good end, for example for obtaining offspring, or for avoiding incontinence. But if it was rendered or asked for the sake of pleasure alone, or if disturbance remains in the mind from it, etc., one must abstain on that day under venial sin, on account of decency. Yet any reasonable cause excuses.¹⁵ - To a spouse asking whether he is held to render on the day of Communion, St. Alphonsus proposes this RULE: If he communicates frequently, he ought to render, lest by his devotion he burden his consort, and lest justice or charity be injured; but if he communicates only on the principal feasts, let him invite the spouse to continence, in honor of the Sacrament; if the other resists, let him render, and nevertheless communicate, provided he is otherwise disposed.¹⁶

3. Those having notable external uncleanness, which can easily be removed, should deservedly abstain until they have been cleaned. Yet if it is hidden, or perpetual and involuntary, as leprosy, flow of blood, scabies, it does not impede Communion. - But to a priest who is leprous, or laboring under a horrible disease, it is permitted to celebrate privately, since in the Law it is prohibited only "on account of the scandal and abomination of the people."¹⁷

1562. II. By natural law, an EXTERIOR HABIT and COMPOSITION of the body are required, which exhibit internal reverence and devotion of the soul. - The reason is evident; for to this most august Sacrament not only internal but also external veneration is due, since Christ Himself, by means of the species, exists and is handled in it in a certain sensible manner.¹⁸

Hence: 1. Women ought to approach Holy Communion in holy adornment, redolent of modesty. If any should present themselves very indecently at the sacred Table, for example with the breast uncovered, Communion would have to be denied to them, yet with due precautions, so far as can be done, to prevent scandals.¹⁹ 2. It is fitting that armed persons approach with weapons laid aside. The soldiers of St. John are excepted, who bear arms as a sign of Religion to be defended.²⁰ 3. Priests communicating in the manner of laymen should communicate with a stole. Thus the Rubric, which seems to prescribe this under venial sin.²¹

1575. The pious mother Church, by strict precept, obliges only to Paschal Communion. "And yet let not the faithful have it as enough that they, obeying the authority of this decree, receive the Body of the Lord only once each year; but let them judge that Communion of the Eucharist is to be repeated more often. But whether it is more expedient to do this each month, or each week, or each day, a certain rule cannot be prescribed for all";¹⁰ but a varied NORM must be established according to the variety of persons. - But how one must proceed in this will be taught by the following:

1576. Principles. I. The frequency of Communion is so to be defined that provision is made both for the REVERENCE due to so great a Sacrament and for the UTILITY of the one receiving. The reason of the FIRST is that, on account of the excellence of the Sacrament, "it is required that the one receiving approach with great devotion and reverence...; but because many impediments of this devotion often occur in many human beings, because of indisposition of body or of soul, it is not useful for all men to approach this Sacrament daily, but as often as a man has found himself prepared for it."¹¹ Whence proposition 5, which said: "Frequent confession and Communion, even in those who live like Gentiles, is a mark of predestination," was deservedly condemned by Innocent XI. They ought rather to have said, St. Alphonsus observes,¹² "it is a mark of reprobation." The reason of the SECOND is that the Sacrament of the Eucharist was instituted primarily by Our Lord for the spiritual refreshment of souls; nor is there doubt that the most loving Redeemer wishes this food to be offered to all His sheep: to the well, that they may have life more abundantly; and to the languid, that they may recover.

Wherefore the TRIDENTINE SYNOD desires that Christ's faithful so live¹³ "that they can frequently receive that supersubstantial bread, and that it may truly be for them the life of the soul and the perpetual health of the mind." And this 23rd proposition of Baius was condemned by Alexander VIII: "Similarly, those are to be kept from Communion in whom the most pure love of God, free from every mixture, is not yet present."

1577. II. The richer the fruit that comes from Communion for the one receiving, the MORE FREQUENTLY it is to be conceded; and, to whatever degree the fruit decreases, to that degree the frequency is to be LESSENED, not so that Communion is altogether omitted, but so that preparation and devotion may increase. Concerning this matter Innocent XI speaks thus:¹⁴ "Frequent access to receiving the sacred nourishment is to be left to the judgment of confessors..., who, from purity of consciences, and from the fruit of frequency, and from progress toward piety, ought to prescribe to them, namely penitents, what they foresee will be profitable for their salvation." St. Thomas teaches the same,¹⁵ writing: "If someone knew by experience that from daily consumption the fervor of love was increased, and reverence was not diminished, such a one ought to communicate daily."

But one must beware lest, under the pretext of reverence, the Sacrament be deserted; for "although to abstain from Communion on some day is also a virtue, nevertheless, says Fr. Granada in his Treatise on Communion, it is the common opinion of the Doctors that it is better to approach Communion daily on account of love, than to abstain on account of reverence."¹⁶

1578. But it must be noticed that that richer FRUIT which is attended to in Communion is of a twofold kind, so namely that it is found either in hope, or in act. 1. It is found in hope with respect to that communicating person who is held by a true and right desire of Communion, and who therefore receives it not that he may be seen by men, but that he may profit in the love of God and in union with Christ. 2. But it is found in act with respect to that one who shines with great purity of conscience, who advances continually in piety and in charity, who strongly resists temptations, and who always has a will prompt to execute the divine commands.

Whence St. Alphonsus:¹⁷ "It must be noted," he says, "that which St. Francis de Sales says in his Philothea: If they ask you why you communicate so frequently, answer them that two kinds of persons ought to communicate more often, namely the perfect and the imperfect: the perfect, that they may preserve themselves in perfection; the imperfect, that they may be able to arrive at perfection; the strong, lest they become weak; the weak, that they may become strong; the sick, that they may be cured; the well, lest they become sick. And as for you, as being imperfect, sick, weak, you need frequent Communion. - Tell them that those who are not entangled in worldly affairs ought to communicate more often, because they have opportunity; but those who are detained by such affairs, because they need Communion."

For the rest, as the Holy Doctor notices with St. Lawrence Justinian, it is not necessary that the soul feel, or openly discern in itself, an increase of fervor; since not rarely this Sacrament works without our noticing its operation. - Therefore it suffices for the confessor to detect in the depth of the will of his penitent a certain ALACRITY for executing whatever things have pleased God.¹⁸

1579. According to the preceding principles, St. Alphonsus establishes certain SPECIAL RULES, which it is now useful to explain.

Preliminary note. A threefold degree of frequency is distinguished: 1. weekly Communion, which ordinarily is received once in the week; 2. frequent Communion, which is received several times in the week; 3. daily Communion, which is customarily received daily, perhaps with one day removed. - Wherefore the three following rules are given:

RULE I. WEEKLY Communion is regularly to be conceded and counseled to all who are accustomed to avoid mortal sins. It is said 1. to all who are accustomed to avoid mortal sins, that is, who are solicitous about avoiding them, even if they place no care in acquiring greater perfection.

But if they sometimes fall into mortal sin, Communion is not on that account to be denied to them, provided they detest their sins and propose amendment of life for themselves. It is said 2. to be conceded and counseled; for on the one hand, more cannot be conceded to souls of this kind, St. Alphonsus bearing witness, who writes thus:¹⁹ "There is no doubt that it is an error, as Benedict XIV notices, to concede frequent Communion, that is, more than once in the week, to those who approach with an affection toward deliberate venial sins, without any desire of freeing themselves from them"; but neither, on the other hand, is less to be counseled to them, lest namely they fall into mortal sin. "There are many," says St. Alphonsus,²⁰ "who by communicating every eight days will remain free from mortal sin, but not by communicating every month." And elsewhere:²¹ "For those who lead a tepid life, so that at least they can preserve themselves in the grace of God, it is good that they consume the Body of Christ every Sunday, or at least twice in the month." It is said 3. regularly; for sometimes these also will be able to communicate during the week: for example when some special feast occurs, or if they were in danger of falling into mortal sin, so that thus they may receive strength to resist; but sometimes it will be expedient for those who are not placed in such danger to be interdicted from Communion for an entire week, that they may conceive a greater horror for their defects and greater reverence toward the Sacrament.²²

1580. RULE II. FREQUENT Communion can be permitted and advised to the faithful who are accustomed to avoid fully deliberate venial sins, and assume the means of attaining perfection. Behold, concerning this matter, the words of St. Alphonsus: "When a soul is now held by no affection toward a thing prohibited under venial sin, abstains from fully voluntary venial sins, and moreover applies itself to prayer and to mortification of the passions and senses, then the confessor can concede to it that it communicate three, four, indeed even five times in the week."²³ But the Holy Doctor notices:²⁴ "But if afterwards it is recognized that, notwithstanding frequency of Communion, the soul profits nothing in the way of perfection, nor amends itself from deliberate faults, although venial, as if it adhered even to pleasures of the senses in seeing, hearing, eating, dressing with some vanity: then certainly the use of Communion will by counsel have to be restricted, also so that it may begin seriously to think of its amendment, and to provide for its spiritual perfection."

And speaking of persons consecrated to God: "Indeed, I would permit frequent Communion only with difficulty," he says, "to that Nun who was not willing to amend herself concerning some defect, although not evidently sinful, yet certainly contrary to perfection, especially if it concerns a defect against humility or against obedience."¹

1581. RULE III. DAILY Communion is to be conceded to souls which, immune from affection toward any venial sin whatever, apply themselves much to the exercise of prayer and mortification, and are held by a great desire of Communion. - For these fulfill the condition which St. Thomas requires, writing: "If someone knew by experience that from daily consumption the fervor of love was increased, and reverence was not diminished, such a one ought to communicate daily." "Except, ordinarily speaking, one day in any week, as some prudent directors are accustomed to do; and except that time in which they may wish to deprive penitents of Communion, for testing their obedience or humility, or on account of some other just cause."² - Nevertheless, in Novenas of the Holy Spirit, of the Nativity of the Lord, and of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and of one's holy Patrons, such a person can communicate daily.³

And these things are confirmed by the Decree of Innocent XI, where it is had thus: "Nuns asking daily for Holy Communion are to be admonished that they communicate on the days determined by the Institute of their Order: but if any shine with purity of mind and have grown warm with fervor of spirit, so that they can seem worthy of more frequent or daily reception of the most holy Sacrament, let this be permitted to them by the Superiors."

It was requested: "Whether, and with whose license, Nuns ought to receive the Holy Eucharist, who wish to receive it beyond the days established by the Constitutions or by the custom of the monastery, so that on those days all the Nuns communicate?

And the S. C. CONC., April 14, 1725, responded: "With the license of the ordinary confessor, and not of Directors, with previous communication to the ordinary Prelate."⁴

1582. Admonitions. 1. Let the confessor not immediately concede frequent Communion in perpetuity, but, each time, only a certain number of Communions, until he has taken experience concerning the progress and fervor of the penitent. For many begin with fervor, who little by little fall away, and nevertheless withdraw with difficulty from the rule fixed for themselves.

2. Frequent Communion would be imprudently advised or conceded to persons otherwise disposed, who cannot approach it without some detriment to family affairs, the education of children, the care of the sick, etc. Yet prudent persons generally know how to join each, namely devotion and the duties of their state, so that these by no means harm each other.⁵

3. The fruit of Communion depends not on the disposition of those communicating alone, but also, and indeed very much, on THANKSGIVING. Hence St. Alphonsus admonishes the confessor thus:⁶ "Let him also take care to insinuate that each one remain after Communion in thanksgiving for that time for which he can. Very few are the directors who diligently do this...; and the reason is that very few are the priests who, after the Sacrifice of the Mass, remain with Jesus Christ in thanksgiving; and therefore they are ashamed to insinuate to others what they themselves do not do. - Thanksgiving ordinarily ought to last for a whole hour; let it be made at least for a half hour, in which the soul exercises itself in loving and asking" (cf. n. 1554, end, and n. 1555, q. 3).

4. Let the confessor also insinuate to penitents that they communicate SPIRITUALLY more often. For this is very useful to pious faithful and is commended by the holy Council of Trent, when it says that those communicate spiritually "who, eating in desire that heavenly bread set before them, by living faith which works through love, perceive its fruit and utility."⁷ (cf. n. 1563, question.)

St. Alphonsus proposes the METHOD of communicating spiritually thus: "Therefore elicit an act of FAITH, by which you firmly believe that Jesus Christ is present in the Sacrament; an act of LOVE, to which is joined contrition for your sins; then an act of DESIRE, by which you invite Jesus Christ to come into your soul, and to render it His own; finally give thanks to Him, as if you had already truly received Him."⁸

1306. Principles. - I. For receiving the Sacrament of the Eucharist, besides immunity from excommunication (n. 1676) and interdict (n. 1696. q. 1°. q. 2°), there is required the state of grace, at least prudently judged to be present. Otherwise a most grave sacrilege is committed. The reason is clear from the nature of the thing, and also from the words of the Apostle:¹ But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of that Bread, and drink of the Chalice. For he who, etc.

II. It does not suffice that the state of grace be acquired by perfect contrition, but it is required that Confession of mortal sins be premised and Sacramental absolution be received, except in a case of necessity, namely either when the supply of a confessor is lacking and Communion cannot be omitted without grave note or suspicion, or when it must be celebrated by a priest so that the people may assist at Mass on a feast day. - Trent.² See St. Alphonsus.³

1307. - Questions. Query 1° When is the supply of a confessor judged to be lacking?

Resp. It is judged to be lacking: 1° If no confessor is present, and, considering the circumstances of weakness, age, business, distance, weather, shortness of time, etc., an absent one cannot be approached without grave difficulty.

2° If no other confessor is present except one ignorant of the language, or lacking jurisdiction, or to whom you cannot confess without grave damage to yourself or another. Nevertheless in these cases perfect contrition is required. But the supply of a confessor is not judged to be lacking if the one to whom you are accustomed to confess is absent; rather any approved confessor must be lacking.¹

But a cause excusing from Confession occurs most rarely for laymen. It can indeed more easily be present as regards priests; but one must surely beware lest, deterred by a vain pretext or by shame and embarrassment, they imagine for themselves a chimerical impossibility.

Query 2° What distance is required, that the priest may be judged to be lacking?

Resp. It cannot be determined rigorously, but depends on circumstances. Some require a distance of two leagues; others one league with a half or a quarter; others one league only. But besides the reason of journey, other reasons often urge, e.g. infirmity or shortness of time. Thus a priest already about to celebrate can be excused from Confession, even if the confessor is distant only 50 paces.²

Query 3° Is he who remembers a mortal sin which from inculpable forgetfulness he did not declare in Confession held to confess it before Communion?

Resp. 1° Certainly not, if the penitent is already at the Sacred Table, or a grave cause of communicating is present, and he can confess again only with difficulty. The reason is because, even if the precept of Confession were present, it would not urge with so great an inconvenience. - Thus all.

Resp. 2° If the penitent can confess or omit Communion without inconvenience, it is controverted: very probably he is neither held to confess, nor to abstain from Communion; because the sin omitted involuntarily has certainly been remitted, although only indirectly; and therefore it in no way stands in the way of Communion to be received. Nor should you say that the precept of Trent of confessing before Communion urges; for the penitent, since he has already been rightly confessed and justified through the Sacrament of Penance, is sufficiently proved, even according to the mind of the Council of Trent. - St. Alphonsus³ and others, against others who more commonly and not improbably held the opposite. - St. Alphonsus inclines more to the former sentence, nevertheless he judges that the second is to be advised in practice, provided that some cause does not counsel otherwise.

Query 4° Is a priest who celebrated, or a layman who communicated conscious of mortal sin, without Confession, because of urgent necessity, held to confess as soon as possible?

Resp. 1° As regards the priest, affirmatively. For thus expressly Trent:² "But if, necessity urging, a priest has celebrated without previous Confession, let him confess as soon as possible."

Resp. 2° As regards the layman, negatively, more probably. The reason is because Trent speaks only of priests, as is clear from the text. - Thus most commonly, says St. Alphonsus.³

Query 5° How is that precept imposed on priests of confessing as soon as possible to be understood?

Resp. More probably it suffices if the priest confesses within three days; because, since this precept is only ecclesiastical, the word as soon as possible can be understood morally, as it is understood in other human laws, where that word, or another similar word, by common interpretation is extended to the space of three days.⁴ - Nevertheless the priest cannot celebrate again before he has confessed, because he was not excused from Confession except on account of present necessity. Hence, if the same necessity of celebrating on the following day urges, and he can confess, he cannot defer Confession to another day.

Query 6° Is a priest celebrating after Confession, in which he inculpably forgot some mortal sin, held to confess as soon as possible?

Resp. 1° Negatively, if he remembers the sin after celebration; because he did not celebrate conscious of that sin, as Trent speaks. - Thus commonly.

Resp. 2° Negatively, very probably, even if he remembers the sin before celebration; because since he has premised Confession, although he forgot some grave sin, nevertheless he cannot be said to have celebrated conscious of mortal sin without previous Confession. St. Alphonsus¹ calls this sentence very probable, after Lacroix and others against Suarez, Lugo, etc.

Query 7° Is a priest celebrating sacrilegiously, when necessity does not urge, or, if it does urge, when the supply of a confessor is not lacking, held to confess as soon as possible?

Resp. Negatively. The reason is because the precept of Trent is ordered only to striking fear into those who defer Confession under pretext of necessity, not however into those celebrating sacrilegiously, to whom a precept of this kind would very rarely be of profit; for those who, having contemned the divine precept, dare to celebrate sacrilegiously, would surely more easily contemn the precept of the Church. - Thus most commonly and more truly, St. Alphonsus.²

Query 8° Does affection to some venial sin impede the whole fruit of Communion?

Resp. Negatively. The reason is because the will can well experience pious movements toward God and the Sacrament, although it retains some lightly disordered affection toward a particular thing; therefore one communicating with such an affection is not deprived of every fruit of the Eucharist.³

A twofold disposition is required on the part of the body, namely 1° fasting; 2° decency.

1308. - Principles. I. From the precept of the Church, for Communion there is required natural fasting, or total abstinence after midnight from any thing whatever, however minimal, which by way of food, drink, or medicine is conveyed into the stomach, with certain cases nevertheless excepted. It is established 1° from the universal custom of the Church and unanimous tradition; 2° from all Catechisms and Rituals approved by the Church;³ 3° from the Councils and especially from Constance.⁴

II. For breaking that fast, according to the common sentence three conditions are required, namely 1° That what is taken be taken from without and be conveyed into the stomach: for what does not come from without, even if it is voluntarily swallowed, or what is not conveyed into the stomach, but e.g. sticks in the throat, is not said to be eaten; for things which are eaten come from without and are destined for the stomach. Hence blood flowing from the mouth, tongue, gums, etc. does not break the fast.¹

2° That something be taken by way of eating or drinking. The reason is because according to common sense the natural fast is broken only in this way. Hence whatever is drawn by way of respiration or saliva in no way breaks the fast. Thus you remain fasting, although through respiration you swallow dust or a fly, by accident, namely, and not on purpose.²

3° That the thing taken have the character of food or drink, that is, that it be something alterable in the stomach and apt for nutrition. The reason is because otherwise, according to the common mode of understanding, there is not eating nor drinking. For no one is said to eat iron, glass, etc. - Thus commonly the Theologians with St. Thomas,³ St. Alphonsus.⁴

III. From the Response of the Sacred Penitentiary, dated 18 June 1873, it must be gathered that as regards the moment at which the obligation begins of the natural fast, the ecclesiastical fast, the divine office, etc., one must stand by public clocks, or those designated by the Magistrate for indicating noon; and this even if they do not mark true time, but only mean time, or the mean time not of one's own meridian, but of another, e.g. of the metropolis.⁵

Addendum and Corrigendum. - What is said in this place is to be understood according to the following response of the Sacred Penitentiary. "Whether, where clocks accommodated to mean time are used, one must stand by them both for fulfilling the burden of the Divine Office and for observing the natural fast; or whether one ought, or at least can, use true time? The Sacred Penitentiary responded: The faithful, in observing the natural fast and in reciting the Divine Office, can follow mean time, but are not bound to do so. - On 29 Nov. 1882."

1309. Questions. - Query 1° Does the swallowing of remnants of food which adhere between the teeth break the fast?

Resp. 1° Negatively if it is involuntary, because it does not have the character of food. It is established also from the Rubric of the Missal.⁶ - Thus all.

Resp. 2° If it is voluntary, it is controverted.

The first sentence, which to St. Alphonsus² does not seem improbable, denies; because such remnants are morally reputed parts of the eating of the preceding day, and not of a new one, and they are not taken by way of food, although on purpose, but by way of saliva. - See the Rubric.¹

The second sentence affirms; because such a swallowing, since it is done deliberately, seems to be a new eating. - Thus Roncaglia, etc. St. Alphonsus² says that this sentence is more common and more probable, and altogether to be counseled; nevertheless he warns that one must not act scrupulously in this, so that it suffices to spit out those remnants which are sensibly perceived on the tongue, and there is no obligation to employ diligence to draw them out from the teeth, even if otherwise they are foreseen to be swallowed.

Query 2° Do little drops of water or broth tasted and mixed with saliva break the fast if they are swallowed?

Resp. 1° Negatively, if they are swallowed accidentally beyond intention, provided they are not in great quantity. The same must be said of the little drops which are involuntarily swallowed while washing the mouth. The reason is because they are not taken by way of nutrition. It is established also from the Rubric of the Missal.³

Resp. 2° Affirmatively, if they are swallowed on purpose. The reason is because then nothing is lacking so that they have the character of food or drink.⁴

Query 3° Does tobacco powder taken through the nostrils dissolve the fast?

Resp. Negatively, even if something is transmitted into the stomach. The reason is because, although such matter is nutritive, nevertheless it is not taken by way of eating, unless it is done on purpose.⁵

Query 4° Does tobacco smoke or similar smoke dissolve the fast?

Resp. Negatively, because in the common estimation of men tobacco smoke is neither food nor drink, nor is it taken by eating or drinking. On account of the same reason it must be said that those do not break the fast who draw in through both mouth and nostrils the smoke of foods in a kitchen. And this holds even if the smoke is voluntarily sent into the stomach.⁶ - The same seems to be said concerning the juice or odor of camphor, which is drawn in by way of tobacco smoke (in French: cigarette de Raspail).

Query 5° Does he dissolve the fast who takes a leaf of tobacco, or a spice, in order to bruise it with the teeth and spit out phlegm?

Resp. Negatively, probably, even if a little of the juice inseparably mixed with saliva is swallowed, nevertheless beyond intention; because, if this is swallowed accidentally, it is conveyed not by way of food, but by way of saliva. But all agree that chewing of this kind before Communion is indecent; hence it does not seem to be excused from venial fault, unless some reasonable cause intervenes.¹

Query 6° Can he communicate who doubts whether after midnight he has taken food or drink, or on the same day has swallowed something?

Resp. Affirmatively, as is clear from what was said n. 67. 1°. a). Except if presumptions to the contrary are so strong that the one acting believes more probably that twelve o'clock has already sounded.²

Query 7° Is it lawful to eat and drink immediately after Communion?

Resp. Formerly indeed after Communion the fast was prescribed until Sext. But this precept has long since been abrogated. Nevertheless from decency some delay must be observed between the reception of this Sacrament and other foods, at least as long as the consecrated species, not yet wholly corrupted, persevere in the stomach, unless nevertheless there is some reasonable cause of taking something immediately; otherwise such eating, on account of irreverence, is not excused from venial fault.³

Query 8° Is it illicit to spit after Communion?

Resp. Negatively, of itself, provided that no fragment of the Host has remained in the mouth. For there is no danger of irreverence toward the sacred species; since the way through which spittle flows together into the mouth is not the esophagus, or the way of food and drink, but is the way of respiration. Nevertheless all agree that it is fitting that those who have communicated abstain from spitting for some interval of time.⁴

Query 9° When is it lawful to communicate someone not fasting?

Resp. One not fasting communicates lawfully 1° in danger of death, from whatever cause it comes; 2° in danger lest the Eucharist perish or be badly handled, e.g. by heretics, impious persons; 3° in proximate danger of grave scandal from omission of the Sacrifice or Communion; 4° in necessity of completing the Sacrifice or Communion, e.g. if the priest has taken water for the species of wine, etc.¹ (9) p. 417.

Query 10° Is moral certainty of danger of death required, that Viaticum can be ministered to one not fasting?

Resp. Negatively, but a prudent doubt suffices, or probability of danger (for probability of the article of death is not required, if with some it is pleasing to distinguish danger from article), especially when it is to be feared lest the sick person be seized by sudden death. Indeed Pastors and parents or relatives of the sick are to be gravely reproved, who from carelessness or vain fear so prolong the administration of Sacred Viaticum that the sick are in danger of dying without the Eucharist.² But if the sick person could easily receive Viaticum fasting on the following day, he would be held to wait. Nevertheless in this matter one must not proceed scrupulously, since the Council of Constance simply excepts the dangerously sick from the law of fasting.³

Query 11° Is it ever lawful to give Communion to a sick person not fasting, and not dangerously bedridden, if the illness is long-lasting?

Resp. It must be denied, given the present practice of the Church, unless the illness is of such a kind that of itself it can induce danger of death. Nevertheless some Theologians permit this at times, if the illness is long-lasting, and the sick person can never communicate altogether fasting, provided it be done rarely, e.g. some times in the year. - Thus Elbel.⁴ But the most common sentence of Theologians with Suarez contradicts, who asserts that only the Pope can dispense in this law. In fact, the Supreme Pontiff is accustomed to dispense rarely and only from a grave cause, nevertheless even with private persons (as I myself know from a particular case), and not only, as formerly almost, with public persons or from a public cause, that they may communicate once, three times, or even several times in the year. But then there is a sufficient reason why sometimes the Eucharist can be administered to a sick person after midnight. The reason why this can be done only by dispensation of the Pope is that otherwise this law of the Church would be too much relaxed. See, if you please, Benedict XIV, the Brief Quodam de more, dated 24 March 1756, handing down the history of this law.

1310. Principles. - I. By natural law that exterior habit and that composition of body are required which exhibit the internal reverence and devotion of the soul. The reason is clear: for not only internal, but also external veneration is due to this most august Sacrament, since Christ himself, by means of the species, exists and is handled in it in a certain sensible way.

II. No stain whatever of the body of itself impedes Communion, since the Eucharist is only food of the soul, nor is purity diminished by stains of the body, which contribute nothing to moral goodness or malice.¹ - Nevertheless the decency and reverence due to so great a Sacrament require that, if dirt appearing externally can be removed, it be diligently removed.

III. There is no obligation of abstaining from Communion on account of hidden stains of the body, or even those appearing externally, but indelible.² - If nevertheless external stains, here and now indelible, are very notable and ought to cease shortly, it will be becoming, where it can conveniently be done, to defer Communion. But when they last longer, there is no reason why someone should be deprived of heavenly nourishment. - Thus commonly.

1311. Resolves. - 1° Women ought to approach holy Communion in holy ornament, redolent of modesty; if some should present themselves to the Sacred Table very indecently (see n. 1233. 19), Communion would have to be denied to them, with due cautions nevertheless for preventing scandals as far as can be done.

2° Leprosy, flow of blood, and similar things, which happen without fault of the sufferer, of themselves do not prohibit from Communion, because those blemishes do not stand in the way of devotion, which is the disposition required for Communion.³ - After a voluntary pollution had shortly before, to approach holy Communion, although someone is contrite and confessed, they say is venial, unless scandal or another just cause demands Communion; the same holds after one venially evil, or even involuntary, if it leaves disturbance in the mind. They except if the one about to communicate endeavors to repel this as much as he can, or some just cause of necessity or devotion is present.¹ - Concerning Communion after conjugal intercourse it will be said n. 1646. 7°.

3° A priest infected with leprosy, or another infirmity exciting horror, can celebrate, but not in public; for thus it is established from Canon Law.²

4° It is fitting from decency and Christian humility that soldiers about to communicate approach the Sacred Table with arms laid aside. Nevertheless they are obliged to this by no law.³ - The same should be said of laymen wearing gloves. "But priests," says the Roman Ritual, "should communicate with stole."

1312. By the name of frequent Communion, commonly with St. Alphonsus, are understood in the stricter sense those Communions which, besides Sundays or feast days, are made also on ferial days without previous Confession.

It is certain, 1) frequent Communion, even daily, has always been most desired in the Church. It is established 1° from the common agreement of the Fathers, who always earnestly commended it to the faithful. It is established 2° from Trent,⁴ where it says: "The holy Synod would indeed wish that at individual Masses the faithful standing by communicate, not only with spiritual affection, but also by sacramental reception of the Eucharist, by which the fruit of this Most Holy Sacrifice may come to them." It is established 3° from the Decree of Innocent XI of the year 1679, and also from the common agreement of Doctors. Therefore frequent Communion is greatly to be praised, and earnestly to be urged upon the faithful by Pastors and also by confessors. It is certain, 2) days for receiving the Sacred Eucharist cannot be established generally; nor are those to be kept away from it who desire to approach frequently, unless they seem unworthy. Therefore this whole matter must be left to the judgment of confessors, who, according to purity of conscience and the fruit perceived from the Sacred Table, ought to prescribe that which they judge will profit individuals more. 3) As regards Sacred Virgins, if they ask Sacred Communion daily, "they will be admonished that they communicate on the days established by the institute of their Order; but if some shine with purity of mind and have grown warm with fervor of spirit in such a way that they may seem worthy of more frequent or daily reception of the Most Holy Sacrament, let this be permitted to them by Superiors." - Thus from the same Decree of Innocent XI.¹ Cf. n. 1189. 5°.

1313. - According to the mind of St. Alphonsus,² and of others reported by him, the doctrine on frequent Communion can be constrained in a few general rules thus.

First Rule. - Monthly Communion is to be denied to no one sufficiently disposed; indeed it is to be advised most greatly to all, even if they live a life entangled in secular business; for otherwise it is very difficult to persevere long in divine grace, on account of innumerable occasions, and the quasi-forgetting of eternal things. - Thus commonly.

Second Rule. - Weekly Communion is to be permitted, indeed also advised, to those who by habit do not commit grave faults: nevertheless for those who labor under several light vices and are not at all solicitous concerning amendment, it will sometimes be useful to interdict Communion for some week, namely that they may be stirred up with some zeal to casting aside vices.³

Third Rule. - Frequent Communion, or several times in the week, can be permitted, or even advised, to those in whom these three things are found: 1) Flight from fully deliberate venial sin, and absence of voluntary affection to venial sin, i.e. to its matter. 2) Study of Christian perfection and desire of Communion. 3) Exercise of mental prayer and mortification.⁴ - Thus regularly speaking; for exceptionally it can also be granted "to some who" lack the aforesaid dispositions, but "would be in danger of falling into lethal sins, that they may receive strength for resisting."¹

Fourth Rule. - Daily Communion is to be granted to those who, besides the two former things aforesaid, devote themselves much to prayer and mortification and for the greater part have overcome evil desires. "Except, ordinarily speaking, one day in any week ... and that time in which" directors wish "to deprive their penitents of Communion for proving their obedience, or humility, or on account of some just cause."² It can also be granted on account of some particular passing circumstance, e.g. on account of a novena.

S. Th. III, q. 80, a. 2-6 and 9.

270. The subject capable of communion is every and only baptized man who is a wayfarer, who alone is the proportioned subject of the Eucharist, because he alone is capable of its effects. Angels do not have a body; moreover the blessed are united to Christ in a more perfect and eminent way through the beatific vision and through perfect charity; to them it does not belong to receive in a sign, because they do not have faith but manifest vision.

In adults, for validity, intention is required, for which, for Viaticum, habitual and implicit intention suffices: for he who wills to live Christianly implicitly wills not to die without the sacraments; - for worthy and fruitful reception, faith alone does not suffice (Council of Trent, sess. 13, can. 11), but three dispositions of soul are required; two remote: a) proof of the state of grace, and b) sufficient discretion, and one proximate: c) great devotion and reverence.

271. First, under grave obligation, proof of the state of grace is required. - It consists in this, that by prudent estimation one is not conscious of mortal sin; or if he is conscious, that he first make sacramental confession, however contrite he may seem to himself.

Proof is required by natural and divine law (I Cor. XI, 28), because the Eucharist is a sacrament of the living; but proof through confession is not so required, because without it, by perfect contrition alone, provision could be made for reverence toward the sacrament. But confession is prescribed by ecclesiastical law, and was introduced by ancient custom declaring such proof to be necessary, which Trent decreed was to be observed, sess. 13, c. 7, and which the Code of Law confirmed (can. 856 and 807).

It is said: 1. is not conscious of mortal sin; whence a) one doubting, whether negatively or positively, whether he has sinned mortally, is not bound to confess: for he does not have conscience, i.e., certain knowledge; b) one negatively doubting whether a sin was rightly confessed, i.e., having no solid reason for believing this, is bound to confession; one positively doubting, i.e., on account of a grave reason, probably is not bound, because he is no longer conscious of sin;

2. if he is conscious, that he first make confession; whence if someone has confessed and without grave fault has omitted a mortal sin, he has already satisfied the precept, because through confession his state of grace was proved.

Nevertheless in these cases confession is to be counseled; but not to the scrupulous.

272. To communicate or celebrate without prior confession is licit when at the same time necessity urges and the availability of a confessor is lacking.

A. The necessity required is grave, because it is also grave not to carry out a precept of great moment in so grave a matter; whence per se the celebrity of a feast, the burden of a Mass to be said from a benefice, great devotion, an indulgence to be gained, or poverty of the priest would not suffice unless it were altogether grave.

Commonly among excusing necessities are numbered:

1. Danger of death either of the one about to communicate himself (if he is himself a priest, or a layman in the presence of a priest who does not know how to speak), or of another (that a host may be consecrated for him).

2. An office to be fulfilled from which follows great utility for many, as if a pastor or another priest is bound to celebrate, for example so that the people may hear Mass on a feast day, and another is lacking; but not, as it seems, for the utility of one, as if for a layman the precept of annual or paschal communion were urgent, because it can be deferred.

Certainly, however, a priest could not celebrate so that he himself may be able to hear Mass, because this is not a necessity: for no priest is bound to celebrate so that he may hear Mass.

3. A founded danger of infamy or scandal, which would arise from omission of the sacred rite (for example in celebrating funerals or blessing marriages) or of communion (for example if someone at the communion rail remembers a sin and cannot withdraw without infamy).

4. The integrity of the sacrifice, when another is not present to complete it, or if the celebrant after consecration should remember a sin or should become guilty.

But if this happens before consecration, per se he ought to confess or interrupt the sacrifice; in practice, however, infamy or scandal can almost always be feared.

5. Danger of profanation, for example in a sudden irruption of those who will profane the hosts.

In these cases, however, an act of perfect contrition, to be elicited with moral diligence, is prescribed, unless time is lacking, as can happen while one seated at the table of communion remembers a sin, or while enemies make an irruption; in which last case the host should not be received sacramentally from the intention of communicating, but merely materially, to hide it in the body.

B. The availability of a confessor is lacking, not indeed if that one is absent to whom you are accustomed or desire to confess, or if no one is present except a familiar person, to whom you can confess only with great shame, but if confession cannot be made, or not without a great inconvenience extrinsic to it.

Thus: 1. If there is no present approved priest with jurisdiction, and you cannot go to an absent one without great difficulty, which is to be estimated with consideration of weakness, age, business of the priest, and the circumstances of weather, distance, shorter time, conditions of the journey, etc.

2. If the one present is unwilling or unable to hear confession, for example deaf, an accomplice, ignorant of the language, bound by censure.

3. If from confession you fear a grave inconvenience extrinsic to confession, excusing from its material integrity, such as breach of the seal, infamy of the accomplice, one's own infamy before a third party, grave enmities, grave provocation to evil.

Great confusion to be undergone or infamy before the confessor does not suffice, because it is an inconvenience intrinsic to confession. Yet a few more recent authors judge, by epikeia, that extraordinary and truly invincible shame is an extrinsic inconvenience, as if a sister before her brother, a father before his son, had to confess a very shameful sin. But it was never so declared in the course of so many centuries, and therefore only in the last time those few authors would have rightly understood the law! Moreover they bring forward no positive foundation for this exception; but if it were admitted, there would easily be occasion for multiplying cases, and so danger of eluding the law.

273. For those celebrating without prior confession there is a special precept of confessing as soon as possible. - The Council of Trent imposes on priests conscious of sin, who with or without contrition celebrated from urgent necessity without prior confession, that they confess as soon as possible (sess. 13, c. 7); and this is confirmed by the Code of Law, can. 807. This is not counsel but a strict precept, as is clear from proposition 38 condemned by Alexander VII.¹

¹ "The mandate of Trent, given to a priest sacrificing from necessity with mortal sin, of confessing as soon as possible, is counsel, not a precept."

Since it is an ecclesiastical law, it is to be strictly interpreted; whence it is not applied to laymen, nor to priests only communicating, nor to those who so celebrated from mere malice, i.e., without necessity or while availability of a confessor was present to them, nor to those who after Mass had begun should remember a sin or become guilty, as the words indicate: without prior confession.

Moreover that as soon as possible does not signify: when the priest shall confess at his own time, as is clear from condemned proposition 39,² but morally at once, which ordinarily they explain as within three days: for what is done within three days is said in law to be done at once. Yet such a priest cannot celebrate again before he has confessed, unless necessity and at the same time the lack of a confessor persevere. But if a confessor morally present is about to depart and another is foreseen to be lacking, confession would have to be made without delay.

² "That particle as soon as possible is understood as when the priest shall confess at his own time."

274. To communicate with consciousness of sin is a very grave sin of sacrilege. - For the Apostle, in whose manner the Fathers speak, says that one guilty of the body and blood of the Lord eats and drinks judgment to himself (I Cor. XI, 27-29), which Trent confirms, sess. 13, can. 11, c. 7. And indeed: He who impedes the principal effect of the sacrament sins notably, because as much as he can he renders its signification false; this is against the reverence due to the sacrament and to Christ its institutor; whence it is sacrilege.

"Whoever," says St. Thomas, a. 4, "receives this sacrament signifies that he is united to Christ, which is done through charity, which no one has with mortal sin; and therefore he who receives with sin commits falsehood in this sacrament, and therefore incurs sacrilege as a violator of the sacrament."

More completely in the Commentary on IV Sent., d. 9, q. 1, a. 3, qc. 1, he indicates that in the unworthy reception of the sacrament there is a threefold abuse, as if from a threefold falsehood: "1. From that which is sacrament only, from which it appears that this sacrament is proposed by way of food, but food does not befit except one living; whence if one lacking spiritual life through mortal sin receives this sacrament, he abuses it. 2. From that which is there reality and sacrament, which is Christ Himself, who is the Holy of Holies, whence His receptacle ought to be holy; and therefore if someone receives the body of Christ with what is contrary to holiness, he abuses the sacrament. 3. From that which is reality only, which is the mystical body of Christ, because from this very fact that someone approaches this sacrament, he signifies that he tends to the unity of the mystical body; whence if he holds sin in conscience, through which he is separated from the mystical body, he incurs the fault of fiction (in the strict sense), and thus abuses the sacrament."

Nevertheless it is not the gravest of all sins:

1. Per se, i.e., on the part of the object, sins which are directly opposed to God or to the reverence due to Him are graver (against the theological virtues or the virtue of religion), such as infidelity, blasphemy, perjury; and those which are done against the humanity of Christ in its proper species (by offending religion), because they immediately touch Christ; whence if sacrilegious communion is compared by the Fathers to the sin of Judas kissing or of those killing Christ, this is to be understood with proportion, according to a certain likeness, because each is committed against the body of Christ, yet not according to the quantity of the crime. Moreover it is a graver irreverence to cast the sacrament into mud (to be trampled) or to give it to dogs (to be eaten), because thus one recedes more from the use of the sacrament. - Yet it is graver than sins which are done against other sacraments or sacred things, - or against creatures (by offending other moral virtues), although these can be graver on the part of the injury or damage inflicted (for example homicide).

2. Nor per accidens, i.e., on the part of the sinner, is it ordinarily graver than others, because rarely is it done from contempt but more often from fear, lest someone be thought a sinner.

275. Sufficient instruction and discretion are also required. - From the nature of the thing there is required that instruction and discretion by which they at least discern this sacramental table from a profane one, this heavenly bread from common bread: for by an adult the sacrament is not validly received without intention, which is impossible without the aforesaid instruction and discretion. Yet on account of greater reverence, from custom a greater instruction is required concerning the truths of faith and the duties of Christian life: which instruction, established by ecclesiastical law, is not to be demanded for Viaticum, which is prescribed by divine law.

Thus can. 854: "§ 1. To children who, on account of the weakness of age, do not yet have knowledge and taste of this sacrament, the Eucharist is not to be administered.

"§ 2. In danger of death, that the most holy Eucharist can and ought to be administered to children, it is enough that they know how to discern the body of Christ from common food and reverently adore it.

"§ 3. Outside danger of death, a fuller knowledge of Christian doctrine and more accurate preparation is deservedly required, namely that by which they may perceive according to their capacity at least the mysteries of faith necessary by necessity of means for salvation, and devoutly, according to the measure of their age, approach the most holy Eucharist."

Therefore for receiving Holy Communion some use of reason is required, which is judged then to be had, and only then is had, when the child can sin mortally. This is clear from the Council of Trent, which, in teaching that "little children lacking the use of reason are bound by no necessity to sacramental communion of the Eucharist," assigns one reason for this, that they cannot sin mortally: "Since indeed," it says, "they cannot in that age lose the grace of the sons of God already attained" (sess. 21, c. 4). - Nevertheless children would communicate validly before the use of reason: for one who lives through Baptism can also be nourished; as moreover is clear from the practice of the primitive Church, which practice was vigorous even to our times among Orientals, and today still exists at least by law among the Greeks, but in the Latin Church it has reasonably been abrogated by approved custom and expressed in the Roman Ritual (tit. 4, c. 1, nn. 10 and 11): for that the sacrament might be most highly esteemed by the faithful, the Church grants it to no one who does not know how to discern so great a gift. Whence to grant the Eucharist to children before the use of reason in the Latin Church would be gravely illicit.

Hence: 1. Under grave obligation it is prohibited to give Viaticum to those who have not yet come to the use of reason, such as the perpetually insane.

2. To the fully insane who have had the use of reason, and to the delirious, Viaticum is to be given, provided they previously had at least the implicit intention of communicating, and danger of irreverence is absent.

B. As regards communion, conformably to the decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, 20 Dec. 1905:

1. For communion, even frequent and daily communion, strictly only two things are required: the state of grace and right intention, by which, namely, one does not indulge custom or vanity or human motives, e.g., empty rivalry, desire of gaining the benevolence of superiors, or sensible sweetness rather than solid piety, but intends to please God, or wishes to be joined more closely to Him by charity, or to meet his own infirmities and defects. For Communion is not the reward of virtue or merit, but a means for acquiring virtue; nor was it instituted before all things for honoring God, but for the utility of men.

2. Yet that communion may be more devout, it is especially expedient that even fully deliberate venial sins be absent, and especially affection toward them; all the more because if this actually perseveres, it impedes the effect of the sacrament, which is fervor or the actual exercise and sweetness of charity. Nevertheless this is not strictly required; indeed, if a pious, right, and sincere intention is present, it cannot happen that those communicating frequently do not free themselves from venial sins and affection toward them.

3. Since the sacraments of the New Law produce a greater effect in proportion to greater dispositions, it must altogether be cared for that careful preparation precede and thanksgiving follow, according to each one's strength, duties, and condition. For one very fervent communion can produce much more fruit than several ordinary ones, or many tepid ones.

4. In frequenting Holy Communion, for the sake of greater prudence and fruit, it is necessary that the counsel of the confessor intervene; not indeed that he may keep away those who have a right intention, but that he may render them more certain concerning right disposition; and stimulate all to a more fervent disposition and greater purity; and also sometimes prohibit those whose right disposition is held suspect, namely so that they may be taught to approach more fervently. Such are those who after many communions do not care about venial sins, but commit them altogether deliberately and with the same frequency as recidivists, and indulge very much, for example, vices of the tongue, or lead a worldly or tepid life.

5. Careful preparation will have to be procured, both remote and proximate. Remote, by which they are habitually preserved in purity, day by day free themselves more from every fault and defect, and burn with a greater desire for Holy Communion; proximate, which consists in diverse affections: living faith, great confidence in Christ, ardent desire, humble contrition even concerning venial sins, profound reverence, and especially perfect unitive charity, which namely more aptly disposes to the proper effect of the sacrament.

6. Thanksgiving should consist in most fervent acts: a vivid and, insofar as can be done, persevering love by which we desire that Jesus be loved more by us and by all creatures; profound adoration; full oblation and handing over of self; subjection of the intellect through faith and of the will through charity; submission of all powers to the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of Christ; pious gratitude; humble petition; and through the day an enduring remembrance of so great a benefit.

But care seems to have to be applied to thanksgiving all the more because, while the species remain, the sacrament continues to produce fruit ex opere operato, not indeed an increase of habitual grace, but the fervor and sweetness of charity, unless by distraction, neglect, or inordinate affection we place an obstacle.

I say. For receiving the sacrament of the Eucharist, not only is the state of grace required, but also that this state be obtained by the faithful through the sacrament of Penance, except, however, in a case of necessity: namely, when on the one hand supply of a confessor is lacking and on the other communion cannot be omitted without grave disgrace or suspicion, or when a priest must celebrate so that the faithful may assist at Mass on a feast day; for then perfect contrition suffices. The reason of the first is that the Eucharist is a sacrament of the living, and therefore, according to the Apostle, he who receives it unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself. But the reason of the second is taken from a positive precept, which rests upon the excellent dignity of this sacrament. - Cf. Council of Trent, sess. 13, chap. 7. - St. Alphonsus, nn. 256 and following.

Let no one whom consciousness of mortal sin burdens, however much he may think himself contrite, approach holy communion without previous sacramental confession; but if necessity urges and supply of a confessor is lacking to him, let him first elicit an act of perfect contrition (Can. 856).

But concerning a priest, Canon 807 establishes thus:

Let a priest conscious to himself of mortal sin, however much he may think himself contrite, not dare to celebrate Mass without previous sacramental confession; but if, with supply of a confessor lacking and necessity urging, yet with an act of perfect contrition elicited, he shall have celebrated, let him confess as soon as possible.

Question 1. When is supply of a confessor judged to be lacking?

Resp. It is judged to be lacking 1st. if no confessor is present and, considering the circumstances of weakness, age, business, distance, weather, shortness of time, etc., an absent one cannot be approached without grave difficulty; 2nd. if no other confessor is present except one ignorant of the language, or lacking jurisdiction, or to whom you cannot confess without grave damage to yourself or to another. But supply of a confessor is not judged to be lacking if he to whom you are accustomed to confess is absent; rather, every approved confessor must be lacking. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 264.

Question 2. Is one who remembers a mortal sin which, from inculpable forgetfulness, he did not declare in confession, held to confess it before communion?

Resp. Negatively; and the reason is that a sin involuntarily omitted has certainly been remitted, although only indirectly, and therefore it in no way stands in the way of communion to be received. Nor should you say that the Tridentine precept of confessing before communion urges; for the penitent, since he has already been duly confessed and justified through the sacrament of Penance, is sufficiently proved even according to the mind of the Council of Trent. Nevertheless, in practice not only must a penitent of this kind be received kindly if he returns, and be absolved again, but it is also to be advised that he confess that sin at once, if he conveniently can. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 257; and Hom. Ap., n. 23. - Gousset, n. 249.

Question 3. Is a priest who has celebrated on account of urgent necessity, or a layman who has communicated conscious of mortal sin, with an act of contrition indeed having been premised, but without previous confession, held to confess as soon as possible?

Resp. Affirmatively as regards the priest, from the precept of Trent, sess. 13, chap. 7, where it is read: "But if, necessity urging, a priest shall have celebrated without previous confession, let him confess as soon as possible." - Cf. Can. 807. - Nor can the word let him confess be understood as if it were counsel, because prop. 38 was condemned by Alexander VII, which sounds thus: "The mandate of Trent, made to a priest sacrificing from necessity with mortal sin, of confessing as soon as possible, is counsel, not precept." - But as regards the layman one must respond negatively, because the Council speaks only of priests. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 262.

Question 4. How is that precept imposed upon priests of confessing as soon as possible to be understood?

Resp. More probably it suffices if the priest confesses within three days; because since this precept is only ecclesiastical, the word as soon as possible can be understood morally, as it is understood in other human laws, where that word or another similar one, by common interpretation, is extended to the space of three days. Nevertheless, the priest cannot celebrate again before he has confessed, because he was excused from confession only on account of pressing necessity. Hence if the same necessity of celebrating urges on the following day and he can confess, he cannot remit confession to another day. But if the same necessity of celebrating urges on the following day, indeed also on the third day or even the fourth, etc., and through those days themselves supply of a confessor is not present, the priest will be able to celebrate no otherwise than before. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 266. - Ballerini, note (a), p. 222.

Question 5. Is a priest celebrating after confession, in which he has inculpably forgotten some mortal sin, held to confess as soon as possible?

Resp. Negatively, whether he remembers the sin after celebration or before celebration, because in neither case can he properly be said to celebrate with consciousness of mortal sin. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 267.

Question 6. Is a priest celebrating sacrilegiously, when necessity is not urging, or if this urges, when supply of a confessor is not lacking, held to confess as soon as possible?

Resp. Negatively; and the reason is that the precept of the Council of Trent is ordered only to striking fear into those who, under pretext of necessity, defer confession, but not to those celebrating sacrilegiously, to whom a precept of this kind would very rarely be of use; for those who, with contempt of the divine precept, dare to celebrate sacrilegiously, would certainly more easily contemn the precept of the Church. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 266.

I say. By precept of the Church, natural fasting is required for communion, or total abstinence after midnight from any thing whatsoever, however very small, which is taken by way of food and drink, with certain cases, however, excepted.

§1. He who from midnight has not observed the natural fast cannot be admitted to the Most Holy Eucharist, unless danger of death urges, or the necessity of preventing irreverence toward the sacrament (Can. 858).

And concerning a priest let canon 808 be heard: - It is not lawful for a priest to celebrate unless the natural fast from midnight has been observed.

This is established both from the universal custom of the Church and unanimous tradition; both from all Catechisms and Rituals approved by the Church; and also from Councils, and especially from the Council of Constance, sess. 13. But in order that that fast be broken, according to the common opinion, three conditions are required, namely 1st. that what is taken have the nature of food or drink; 2nd. that it be taken from outside and conveyed into the stomach; 3rd. that it be taken by way of eating or drinking. The reason is that if one of these conditions is lacking, eating is not properly had, according to the common sense and estimation of men. Hence iron, glass, wood, etc., or blood flowing from the mouth, tongue, gums, etc., or a fly, snow, water, etc., taken by way of respiration or of saliva, do not break the fast. Thus commonly with St. Thomas, 3, q. 80, art. 8; and St. Alphonsus, n. 281.¹

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1108, n. 51.

You Will Resolve. 1st. The conveyance of remnants of food which adhere between the teeth, whether involuntary or voluntary, does not break the fast, because it is not done from outside. This is also established from the Rubric of the Missal, tit. 9, n. 3. - Cf. St. Thomas, in 4, dist. 8, q. 1, art. 4, q. 2, ad 3. - St. Alphonsus, n. 279. - Ballerini, note (a), p. 225.

2nd. Little drops of water which, while the teeth are washed, are mixed with saliva and swallowed beside the intention, do not break the fast, because they are not taken by way of nutrition. - I said beside the intention; for if they are conveyed by deliberate purpose, nothing is lacking for them to have the nature of food or drink. - Cf. Rubr. Miss., de defectibus, n. 3. - St. Alphonsus, n. 279.

3rd. Neither powder of tobacco taken through the nostrils nor its smoke, or that of another similar thing, breathed in, dissolve the fast, because they do not have the nature of food, or at least are not taken by way of food or drink. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 280.

4th. Indeed, at least probably, he sufficiently preserves the fast who takes a tobacco leaf or aromatic substance in order to grind it with his teeth and spit out the phlegm, even if, beside his intention, he swallows some juice inseparably mixed with saliva. The reason is that chewing of this kind of itself tends to eject humors, and if by chance something is swallowed, this is done by way of saliva. - Yet all agree that this chewing before communion is indecent, whence it does not seem excused from venial fault unless some just cause intervenes. - All likewise must agree that the fast is certainly broken if this chewing is done in such a way that the juice of the leaves is extracted and swallowed deliberately. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 280.

5th. "With salt tasted beforehand by catechumens in the conferral of Baptism, although the fast seems to be broken, nevertheless there is still no doubt that, after receiving Baptism, they can, indeed truly must, be admitted to holy communion." S. C. de Prop. Fide, 16 Feb. 1806. - Cf. Acta S. Sedis, vol. 25, p. 437.

6th. He remains fasting who is nourished by an enema, as sometimes happens today to the sick, and probably also he who, for washing the stomach, by the aid of some tube, draws in water and again rejects it. Nevertheless, it is agreed among all that it is illicit to insert into the esophagus a tube smeared with oil or glycerin.

7th. Neither gargling nor spraying breaks the fast. One using them should carefully spit out lest he swallow anything. Besides, it is taken by way of saliva. Tasting foods, customarily done by cooks, likewise does not violate the fast. Cf. Many, De Missa, p. 335.

8th. A priest who is about to celebrate immediately after midnight does not violate the law if a little before that hour he takes some food or drink. It is to be advised that for several hours, on account of reverence, he abstain from food and drink. Leo XIII, granting the faculty to the Church of Lourdes that Mass be said immediately after midnight, placed the condition that the celebrant abstain from food and drink for four hours before Mass. 26 Feb. 1885. The same can, not without praise, be advised also to the people about to communicate in the Mass to be celebrated at midnight. - Cf. Bulot, n. 357.

9th. Among diverse disagreeing clocks, it is lawful to follow the latest, which, however, does not habitually err.¹

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1149, n. 123.

Question 1. Must someone stand by the recent manner of computing time among us, so that he may be said to preserve the natural fast?

Resp. §1. In calculating the hours of the day, one must stand by the common usage of the place; but in the private celebration of Mass, in the private recitation of the canonical hours, in receiving holy communion, and in observing the law of fast or abstinence, although another reckoning may be the usual reckoning of the place, someone can follow the time of the place, or local time, whether true or mean, or legal time, whether regional or another extraordinary time (Can. 33).

Question 2. Can one communicate who positively doubts whether after midnight he has taken food or drink, or on that very day has swallowed something?

Resp. Affirmatively, more probably; and the reason is that in the case it is not established that the fast has been violated, and therefore it is not established that communion is forbidden; for the fact of the violated fast would have to be proved before the law prohibiting the Eucharist to one not fasting is invoked. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 282; and de conscientia dubia, n. 39. - Ballerini, note (a), p. 226.

Question 3. Is it lawful to eat and drink immediately after communion?

Resp. Formerly indeed after communion a fast was prescribed until Sext. But this precept has already long since been abrogated. - Nevertheless, from decency, some delay must be observed between the reception of this sacrament and other foods, at least so long as the consecrated species, not yet plainly corrupted, persevere in the stomach, unless, however, some reasonable cause is present for taking some food immediately; otherwise such eating, on account of irreverence, is not excused from venial fault. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 283.

Question 4. Is it illicit to spit after communion?

Resp. Negatively, of itself, provided no fragment of the host has remained in the mouth. For there is no danger of irreverence toward the sacred species, since the way through which spit flows into the mouth is not the esophagus, or the way of food and drink, but is the way of respiration. Nevertheless, all agree that it is fitting that communicants abstain from spitting for some interval of time. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 283.

Question 5. When is it lawful for someone not fasting to communicate?

Resp. One not fasting communicates licitly 1st. in danger of death, from whatever cause it may come; 2nd. in danger lest the Eucharist perish or be treated badly, for example, by heretics or impious persons; 3rd. in proximate danger of grave scandal from omission of the sacrifice or communion; 4th. in the necessity of completing the sacrifice or communion, for example, if instead of the species of wine the priest has taken water, etc. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 284 and following.

Question 6. Is moral certitude of the danger of death required in order that Viaticum can be administered to one not fasting?

Resp. Negatively; rather, a prudent doubt or probability of danger suffices, especially when it must be feared lest the sick person be seized by sudden death. Indeed, Pastors and parents or relatives of the sick who, from negligence or vain fear, so prolong the administration of sacred Viaticum that the sick are in danger of departing without the Eucharist, must be gravely rebuked. Indeed St. Alphonsus says that in this matter one must not proceed scrupulously, since in the Council of Constance, sess. 13, simply the sick are excepted from the law of fasting. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, Hom. Ap., n. 46; and lib. 6, n. 285, dub. 3. - Ballerini, note (a), p. 227.

Question 7. Is it lawful to give communion to a sick person laboring under a long-lasting illness, and who can neither observe the fast nor lies dangerously ill?

Resp. Affirmatively. §2. The sick, however, who have already been lying ill for a month without certain hope that they will quickly recover, by the prudent counsel of the confessor, can receive the Most Holy Eucharist once or twice in a week, even if they have previously taken some medicine or something by way of drink (Can. 858).

Now from the interpretation of the S. R. and U. Inq. on 7 Sept. 1897, when it is said by way of drink, it is also signified that it is permitted to take broth, coffee, and other liquid foods with which some substance is mixed, as for example flour, grated bread, etc., provided the mixture does not lose the nature of liquid food. In interpreting this canon we must be cautious so that we avoid the double rock of excessive severity or excessive benignity. There are those who say that eggs are not to be numbered among those things which are permitted; but if it is sucked, or if an egg is lightly cooked and runs, it is not established why it could not be permitted. In the canon there is no question of celebrating the Sacrifice of the Mass, but of receiving communion. Indeed, a nun who on other days would remain fasting, but only with grave inconvenience, which certainly is not very dangerous, would not have to be barred from the privilege; but she can communicate on those two days by force of the privilege, and on the others because she has taken no food.¹

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1114, n. 62.

Question 8. Is it lawful for a priest not fasting, say one who has already celebrated before, to say Mass for communicating a sick person who otherwise would be deprived of Viaticum?

Resp. It is controverted; but the affirmative is altogether probable and safe, because the divine precept of Viaticum prevails over the ecclesiastical precept concerning fasting; indeed, some distinguished supporters of the negative opinion admit the probability of this opinion. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 286. - Ballerini-Palmieri, n. 170.

Let the faithful be stirred up so that frequently, even daily, they may be refreshed by the Eucharistic bread according to the norms handed down in the decrees of the Apostolic See; and so that those assisting at Mass, not only by spiritual affection, but also by sacramental reception of the Most Holy Eucharist, being duly disposed, may communicate (Can. 863).

S. C. de Sacramentis, 8 Aug. 1910, nn. V, VI. But what those norms and dispositions are is nowhere more clearly declared than in the decree of the S. C. of the Council, 20 Dec. 1905, which it is useful to place here; the notes of the Code appeal to it often.

"1st. Frequent and daily Communion, as being most greatly desired by Christ the Lord and by the Catholic Church, is open to all the Christian faithful of whatever order or condition; so that no one who is in the state of grace and approaches the Sacred Table with a right and pious mind can be prohibited from it.

2nd. But a right mind consists in this: that he who approaches the Sacred Table does not indulge custom, or vanity, or human reasons, but wishes to satisfy the good pleasure of God, to be joined more closely to Him by charity, and to meet his infirmities and defects by that divine medicine.

3rd. Although it is most greatly expedient that those using frequent and daily Communion be free from venial sins, at least fully deliberate ones, and from affection for them, nevertheless it suffices that they be free from mortal faults, with the purpose of never sinning in the future; with which sincere purpose of soul, it cannot happen that those communicating daily do not by degrees disentangle themselves from sins even venial, and from affection for them.

4th. But since the Sacraments of the New Law, although they obtain their effect ex opere operato, nevertheless produce a greater effect in proportion as greater dispositions are employed in receiving them, therefore care must be taken that diligent preparation precede holy Communion, and suitable thanksgiving follow afterward, according to the strength, condition, and duties of each one.

5th. In order that frequent and daily Communion may be made with greater prudence and increased with richer merit, it is fitting that the counsel of the Confessor intervene. Let Confessors take care, however, that they not turn anyone away from frequent or daily Communion who is found in the state of grace and approaches with a right mind.

6th. But since it is clear that from frequent or daily reception of the Holy Eucharist union with Christ is increased, the spiritual life is nourished more richly, the soul is more abundantly furnished with virtues, and a pledge of eternal felicity is given more firmly to the one receiving, therefore Pastors, confessors, and preachers, according to the approved doctrine of the Roman Catechism (Part II, chap. 4, n. 60), should exhort the Christian people to this so pious and so salutary use by frequent admonitions and with much zeal.

7th. Frequent and daily Communion is to be promoted especially in religious Institutes of every kind; for which, however, the decree Quemadmodum of the day 17 of the month of December 1890, issued by the S. Congr. of Bishops and Regulars, is to remain firm. It is also to be promoted as much as possible in clerical Seminaries, whose students long for the service of the altar; likewise in other Christian youth institutions of every kind.

8th. If there are any Institutes, whether of solemn or simple vows, in whose rules or constitutions, or even calendars, Communions are found fixed and commanded on certain days, these norms are to be considered merely directive, not preceptive. But the prescribed number of Communions must be held as a certain minimum for the piety of Religious. Therefore more frequent or daily access to the Eucharistic table must always be freely open to them, according to the norms handed down above in this decree. But so that all Religious of either sex may be able duly to know the dispositions of this decree, the superiors of individual houses will take care that it be read in common every year in the vernacular language within the Octave of the feast of the Body of Christ.

9th. Finally, after this Decree has been promulgated, let all ecclesiastical writers abstain from any contentious disputation concerning the dispositions for frequent and daily communion.

But when all these things had been reported to the Most Holy Our Lord Pope Pius X by the undersigned Secretary of the Sacred Congregation in the audience of the day 17 of the month of December 1905, His Holiness held this decree of the Eminent Fathers ratified, confirmed it, and ordered it to be published, notwithstanding anything whatever to the contrary. He commanded besides that it be sent to all local Ordinaries and Regular Prelates, so that they may respectively communicate it with their Seminaries, Pastors, religious Institutes, and priests, and may inform the Holy See concerning the execution of those things which are established in it, in their reports on the state of the diocese or institute. Given at Rome, on the day 20 December 1905."

The Sacred Congregation of the Council on 15 Sept. 1906 established: "That the frequency of Holy Communion is to be commended according to the first article of the decree (Sacra Tridentina Synodus) also to children who, once admitted to the sacred table according to the norms in the Roman Catechism, chap. 4, n. 63, must not be prohibited from its frequent participation, but rather they are to be exhorted to it, with the contrary practice in force somewhere being reproved." "It must be cared for with all zeal by those having care of children that after first communion those same children approach the sacred table often, and, if it can be done, even daily, according as Christ Jesus and Mother Church desire." S. Cong. de Disc. Sacr. 8 Aug. 1910. The same Supreme Pontiff granted to those who are accustomed in the state of grace and with a right and pious mind daily to receive the Holy Things from the altar, although once or again in the week they abstain from Communion, that they may obtain all and each of the Indulgences without the obligation of that weekly confession which otherwise would exist as necessary for acquiring the Indulgences occurring at that time.

From these Decrees it is clear that the mind and desire of Christ and of the Church is that daily Communion be also the daily banquet of all the Christian faithful, indeed also of children immediately after first communion has been received. Two conditions are required: the state of grace and a right mind. It would indeed be best if someone approached entangled in no affection for venial sins, but this is not required.

Nor are those asserting the contrary to be heard. For those who demand absence from venial sins and from affection for them as a requisite clearly contradict the Decree: "It suffices that they be free from mortal faults"; but if the other opinion were true, it would not suffice that they be free from mortal faults, but it would be required that they be free from venial faults. If that absence were a certain prerequisite, it would not be said to be an effect, as it were, normal: "it cannot happen that those communicating daily do not by degrees disentangle themselves from sins even venial, and from affection for them." If anyone, in order to preserve himself in the state of grace, communicates daily, he certainly does an excellent work by retaining himself in this way in the friendship of God. We judge that those who are in the state of grace, but are led by a mind not right, can easily be instructed, so that it may also be lawful for them to communicate daily. We confessors do not have the right of demanding conditions more perfect than those which the Church demands. Certainly care must be taken that diligent preparation precede and suitable thanksgiving follow. But it must be noted that these are to be furnished, as the Decree says, "according to the strength, condition, and duties" of each one, and indeed in order "for greater" fruit according to greater dispositions. Suppose some worker who can devote no time to communion except the time of Mass; for him this will be sufficient, for he acts according to his strength. The counsel of the confessor is not the same as permission; it is required, not absolutely, but if someone wishes "to receive with greater prudence and richer merit." It is clear that a grave obligation is imposed upon pastors, confessors, preachers, and superiors of religious institutes, seminaries, and youth institutions of promoting this most salutary use. Pastors obedient to the Supreme Pastor, attending solely to the will of Christ and of the Church, will often, indeed daily, lead their flock to these pastures, the banquet of the Eucharist, and will be blessed.

Question. What can and must Superiors of religious furnish concerning communion?

Resp. §1. Let Superiors take care that all religious:

1st. Each year devote themselves to spiritual exercises;

2nd. If not legitimately impeded, daily be present at the Sacrifice, devote themselves to mental prayer, and diligently apply themselves to other offices of piety which are prescribed by the rules and constitutions;

3rd. Approach the sacrament of penance at least once a week.

§2. Let Superiors promote among their subjects frequent, even daily, reception of the Most Holy Body of Christ; and let frequent, indeed even daily, access to the Most Holy Eucharist be freely open to religious duly disposed.

§3. But if after the last sacramental confession a religious shall have been a grave scandal to the community or committed a grave and external fault, until he has again approached the sacrament of penance, the Superior can prohibit him from approaching holy communion.

§4. If there are any religions, whether of solemn or simple vows, in whose rules or constitutions, or even calendars, communions are found fixed or commanded on certain days, these norms have only directive force (Can. 595).

I. There is a twofold kind of dispositions. The first removes impediments, namely mortal sins; the other adorns the soul with virtues. Of the first at present. The innovators require faith alone for a disposition; but their error Trent proscribed, session 13, canon 5. The first disposition is cleanness from mortal fault. He who after absolution remembers that he committed some crime which through inculpable forgetfulness he did not confess, ought before communion to confess it, as the common and true opinion teaches. There are not lacking theologians, and indeed of great name, who require immunity from affection to venial sins, that the fruits of the Eucharist may be perceived. Others teach that affection to venial sins diminishes indeed the fervour, but does not hinder the fruits of the Eucharist. This disagreement ought to stir us up to detest venial crimes themselves, since according to all they diminish the fervour of charity.

II. QUESTION I. Is the precept of sending confession before, on the part of one who is in mortal sin, divine or human? ANSWER. Many contend that it is merely human. Theologians commonly affirm that it is divine, declared by St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 11, saying: But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice; and again, Holy things are to be handled holily.

III. QUESTION II. What is to be thought of the interpretation of some upon the Tridentine precept of confessing as soon as possible? ANSWER. If a priest, urgent necessity pressing, celebrated in mortal sin being contrite, Trent commands that he confess as soon as possible. Not a few began after their manner to dispute whether this be a precept or a counsel. Some affirmed it to be merely a counsel; but their opinion Alexander VII condemned, no. 38: The command of Trent made to a priest sacrificing of necessity in mortal sin, that he confess as soon as possible, is a counsel, not a precept.

IV. QUESTION III. What is to be said of the interpretation of Frs. La Croix, Viva, and others upon the aforesaid decree of Trent? ANSWER. Fr. Claude La Croix, Book 6, part 1, On the Eucharist, no. 546, § 4, writes here: “Suárez, Vásquez, Sayrus, Marchant, Nuño, de Lugo, Diana, Dicastillo, Aversa, John Sánchez, Gobat, Pellizzari, and Leander teach — in this almost all agree, says Moya, citing very many — that a priest is not bound by this precept, if he has the opportunity of a confessor and has not confessed out of malice: because although he sin more gravely, nevertheless in positive precepts the argument does not hold from the lesser to the greater, or to the like, as de Lugo with the common opinion teaches. … But Trent speaks of him who, urgent necessity pressing, celebrated without previous confession. But if there was an opportunity of a confessor, there was no urgent necessity of celebrating without previous confession. Therefore then he is not bound to confess as soon as possible. This opinion is more probable.” Hence the same opinion Fr. Viva defends in his Treatise on Proposition 38 of Alexander VII, no. 12, and in his Course of Theology, question 7, no. 3.

V. Trent commands that a priest who, urgent necessity pressing and destitute of the opportunity of a confessor, celebrated in mortal sin, confess as soon as possible: since by natural and divine law holy things are to be handled holily. But he who, no necessity urging, having the opportunity of a confessor, out of mere malice celebrates in mortal sin, confession being neglected — he, say the cited probabilists, is not bound to confess as soon as possible, because in positive precepts the argument does not hold from the lesser to the greater, or to the like, as de Lugo with the common opinion says. Unless this be an unheard-of paradox, I confess that I know nothing. The precept of Trent declares natural and divine law, that holy things are to be handled holily, and defines that if, urgent necessity pressing and the opportunity of a confessor being lacking, a priest cannot confess before the celebration of Mass, he confess as soon as possible. This Tridentine precept, as I have said, is a declaration of natural and divine law. Therefore if a priest is bound to confess as soon as possible who, compelled by necessity, for the avoiding of scandal and that he might succour the faithful people, celebrated in mortal sin, by a far and by the very greatest right is that priest bound to confess as soon as possible who, pressed by no necessity but out of mere malice, celebrated in mortal sin. And this is so evident that a common sense void of prejudices suffices for perceiving this truth. Further, if in a truth so clear prejudices bewitch even pious and learned authors themselves, what is to be expected in questions ambiguous and entangled with a coil of difficulties?

VI. QUESTION IV. What of the contrition which Fr. Tamburini teaches is to be sent before by a layman conscious of mortal sin, urgent necessity pressing? ANSWER. Fr. Tamburini in the place cited, § 7, no. 56, writes the following opinion: “Concerning a layman there is no difficulty. For it is enough if he elicit it (contrition) immediately before the taking itself: and because the taking or eating is substantially made when we swallow or transmit the food, but not while it is in the mouth, when the taking is only inchoate — therefore I think it MOST PROBABLE that it is enough that the act of contrition be made while the most holy host is held in the mouth. So de Lugo, and Hurtado, and others.”

VII. While we set forth these and like opinions, now to be derided, now to be deplored, outcries against us are redoubled. But I beseech and adjure even the prudent probabilists themselves to determine whether it is to be permitted that these unheard-of paradoxes be read by Christian readers without a previous warning by which they may beware of them. What? The most holy Host of Christ in the mouth, and the devil reigning in the heart? In the same man God and the devil? Shall a wicked man receive the Sacrament in his mouth before he transmits the host into his stomach, and then elicit an act of contrition — because while it is in the mouth the taking is inchoate, and when we transmit it the eating is substantially made? Who can bear without tears that these things are proposed and persuaded to the Christian people as most probable, not to say probable, documents of morals? Tamburini teaches with the other probabilists that even imperfect contrition itself, formed by charity merely inchoate, is so difficult that he brands with the note of Rigorism the opinion requiring contrition of this kind; and now he reckons it so easy that between the taking of the host inchoatively and the swallowing consummatively he judges that not an imperfect but a perfect contrition can be elicited. It is enough to have described the deplorable figments of those opinions: for they do not deserve to be confuted at greater length.

VIII. QUESTION V. What is to be said of the opinion of Frs. Vásquez and Leander asserting that a priest sinning mortally in the very celebration of Mass is not bound to confess as soon as possible? ANSWER. Fr. Leander, tract 7, disputation 7, question 1, proposes this question in these words: “Whether a priest who in the very act of sacrificing remembers a mortal sin, or perhaps commits it, is bound afterwards by force of the said precept to confess as soon as possible? I answer probably that he is not bound by that precept, because the Council spoke of a priest who, urgent necessity pressing, celebrated without previous confession — that is, of a priest who, compelled by necessity, did not send confession before, before he approached to celebrate the sacrifice … but not of a priest who in celebrating commits a sin, or remembers one. Therefore however much he then consecrate and communicate without confession, he will not be bound afterwards to confess as soon as possible. So Vásquez, Sayrus, Diana.”

IX. What law can stand, such interpretations being admitted? He who in the very celebration of Mass perpetrates a mortal crime is not bound to confess as soon as possible? That paradox is unheard-of by me. Nor less lax is the other opinion of Tamburini, On the Method of Communicating, chapter 1, no. 63, and of Leander, question 8, who teach that a layman standing at the table of communion can receive the Eucharist without sending before the confession of a mortal sin which he remembers, even if he could withdraw without scandal: because, says Leander, since the sacred action has been in a manner begun, he ought not out of reverence for the Eucharist to withdraw from that divine table. So teach and resolve the cases of the times the Doctors of the times. But in very truth the Gospel of Christ cries out — or rather Christ by the mouth of the Evangelist Matthew, chapter 5: If therefore thou offer thy gift at the altar, and there thou remember that thy brother hath anything against thee; leave there thy offering (N.B.) before the altar, and go first to be reconciled to thy brother: and then coming thou shalt offer thy gift. What say the cited casuists to this? Here the discourse is not of the taking of the most sacred body of Christ, but of the offering of a gift. The discourse is not of a mortal sin of the offerer, but of anger and indignation against another brother. Oh how far distant is the Theology of Christ from the theology of those casuists! Tamburini and Leander teach that one is not to withdraw from the sacred table, even if no scandal be feared; others more cautious teach that then one is not to withdraw when scandal is feared. But that scandal which the casuists exaggerate Christ teaches in the praised text is to be contemned. Do not we all approach the tribunal of Penance? Is the sacrament of Penance to be passed over, lest men say that we are guilty of crimes? That a Christian man or woman withdraw from the sacred table exhibits not scandal but an argument of uprightness. For bystanders infer: that man remembered some fault, or became doubtful, and was unwilling with a perplexed conscience to receive the most sacred body of Christ. Therefore the scandal which many casuists obtrude is chimerical. So many priests, so many Christian men and women bring in the most grave scandal by their frequent celebrations and communions, from which they exhibit no fruit and no reformation of morals. So many forward women, shameless and stripped of modesty, who continually sport with their little lovers, who frequent dances, theatres, games, and comedies, and at the same time approach the altars, who attempt to join Christ with Belial and light with darkness — these bring in the most grave scandal to the Christian people. This is the scandal in the taking away of which we must be wholly engaged.

X. QUESTION VI. What is to be said of the opinion of Fr. Tamburini teaching that a case can be given in which one communicating in mortal sin does not commit a new sin? ANSWER. Fr. Tamburini, On the Method of Communicating, chapter 1, § 10, no. 71, that he may open a way for himself to making sacrilege honourable, animates his reader with these words: So kindly are the bowels of the Lord's mercy that he does not disdain sometimes to excuse our obstinacy. For I find one case or another in which a man can take the most pure communion in sin without sin. But lest my adversaries after their manner should be able to impose upon the unskilled, as though I reported the opinions of the casuists truncated, I shall transcribe in just so many words Tamburini's decision, which is of this kind.

XI. “For from the things said above it is established that a priest who, Mass having been begun in good faith, remembers himself guilty of a mortal fault, ought to elicit an act at least of what he reckons contrition. But now if he cannot, or experiences that act to be exceedingly difficult for himself, what shall he do? He cannot confess, he is by no means able to be contrite, and it is most difficult to leave the sacrifice begun on account of the infamy resulting to him. What therefore remains to be extorted from a soul so affected? I judge it probable, from the opinion of some, that this man will not sin mortally if with a conscience of this kind of mortal sin, and with that sorrow which he can then elicit, he pursue the Mass, consecrate, and communicate. So Vásquez, Hurtado, de Lugo. The reason is, because the precept of communicating worthily does not seem to bind the faithful so closely as to compel a priest with so great disgrace to himself to withdraw from a sacred rite begun. But then a priest of this kind will not acquire grace; yet nevertheless he will not sin.”

XII. It is a truth of faith that God does not command impossible things, as Trent defined, session 6, chapter 11. If the cited authors assert that the precept of contrition is impossible, they teach Lutheranism and Jansenism. If they grant that the precept is possible, then those who do not fulfil it sin. Therefore false and full of scandal is the doctrine of Tamburini and of the others asserting that a case is given in which a man can take the most pure communion in sin without sin.

XIII. Fr. Tamburini proceeds in the same place, no. 73: And the same will hold of a layman who, now about to receive the sacred synaxis before the cloth, and unable under any pretext to remove himself, should remember a mortal sin, and could not be contrite: so there; for the reason is the same. LET THE SCRUPULOUS AND THOSE TIMOROUS OF MIND NOTE THIS DOCTRINE. Here the doctrine, which Fr. Viva himself adopts, is not to be refuted with words, but to be deplored with tears.

XIV. QUESTION VII. What is to be said of the other dispositions necessary for the Eucharist? ANSWER. First, the natural fast prescribed by the statute of the Church is necessary; and this discipline has a most ancient origin. The very many disputations which some raise I pass over. The sick, urgent danger of death pressing, can communicate not fasting, as also a priest on account of the necessity of completing a sacrifice left imperfect by another seized by death or by some other unexpected chance.

XV. QUESTION VIII. Is it lawful to approach the Eucharist after conjugal intercourse? ANSWER. Several councils and the Fathers commonly persuade that for a day before communion spouses observe continence. Very many testimonies being omitted, I shall bring forward one or another. St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 7, says: Defraud not one another, except perhaps by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer. Like things St. Peter teaches, Epistle 1, chapter 3. The Tridentine Catechism, part 2, chapter 4, § 58, says: The dignity of so great a Sacrament demands that those who are joined in matrimony abstain some days from the company of their wives, admonished by the example of David, who, being about to receive the loaves of proposition from the priest, professed that he and his young men had been pure from wives for three days. Extremes in the adornment of the body are also to be avoided. Squalor is unbecoming and savours of irreverence. An honourable cleanliness ought to shine in the garment, in the countenance, and in the hands. But those women are altogether to be kept from holy communion who with bared bosom, and with vain garments displaying luxury, pride, and worldly pomps, do not blush to approach so great a Sacrament. Their odours, powders, and counterfeited beauty exhale from afar the stench and filth of their souls.

XVI. QUESTION IX. What is to be said of frequent communion? ANSWER. There came forth in the year 1745 at Paris a book entitled The Spirit of Jesus Christ and of the Church upon Frequent Communion. This work, published by Fr. Pichon, several most learned bishops proscribed by their letters, and the Roman See condemned it. To refute its lax paradoxes in this compendium is not expedient. Extremes in this matter, as in the rest, are to be declined. The Council of Trent, session 22, chapter 6, says: The holy Synod indeed would wish that at each Mass the faithful standing by should communicate not only by a spiritual affection but also by the sacramental reception of the Eucharist, that thereby a more abundant fruit of this most holy Sacrifice might come to them. Would that the morals of Christians were such that the wishes of that Council could be committed to execution.

XVII. Lax paradoxes in this matter also some have taught, as is plain from the following proscribed theses. Venerable Innocent XI condemned the following, no. 56: Frequent confession and communion, even in those who live in the manner of the heathen, is a mark of predestination.

XVIII. Into another extreme others have fallen, whose error Alexander VIII condemned, no. 22: They are to be judged sacrilegious who claim a right to receiving communion before they have done condign penance for their offences.

XIX. Similarly: They are to be kept from holy communion in whom there is not yet the most pure love of God and free from every admixture.

XX. The rules of frequent communion Innocent XI prescribed in his decree Cum ad aures, which you can read in Vol. VIII, Book 3, dissertation 1, chapter 11, as also several testimonies of the holy Fathers for a full instruction in this matter, which you can read in the place cited; there you will find the clearest arguments against sacrilegious communions.

THIS fasting means abstinence from any eatable thing by way of food, drink, or medicine, even if modest, de consecr. dist. 1. cap. Sacramenta. Required indeed for such receiving is matter that can be altered in the stomach, as Lugo teaches de Euch. disp. 15. sect. 2. num. 28. If, however, per accidens it be not alterable, he violates it. Required also is the form, which is the vital passage into the stomach; for this gives that matter the being of food. From the varied consideration, surely, of this matter and form arise various opinions on the breaking of the natural fast.

So also they say that noxious things are taken even by way of medicine, as poison. Many comprehend under this whatever is passed outside through the mouth; others deny it.

THEY ASK, then, first, whether if the remains of the food of the preceding day, sticking to the teeth, be voluntarily swallowed, they impede communion.

THAT THEY IMPEDE assert Vasquez in 3. part. tract. 3. dub. 11. cap. 4. num. 30, Filliucius tom. 1. tract. 4. cap. 8. num. 236, Nungus 3. part. Tom. 1. quaest. 80. art. 8, Paludanus in 4. dist. 8. quaest. 2. art. 2. concl. 2. It seems to St. Thomas 3. part. quaest. 80. art. 8. ad 4. Layman inclines so lib. 5. tract. 4. cap. 6. num. 18.

YET I hold the opposite, as probable, with Suarez 3. part. tract. 3. disput. 68. sect. 4, Henriquez lib. 8. cap. 50, Ioan. de Cruz in direct. quaest. 5. dub. 4, Mosseius in sum. tom. 1. tract. 3. cap. 10. num. 13, Pitigianensis 4. Tom. 1. dist. 18. quaest. 3. art. 3, Camerata de sacram. tract. 4. cap. 10. dub. 19, Rodriquez in sum. Tom. 1. cap. 103. num. 3, Coninch. de sacram. quaest. 80. art. 8. num. 47, Diana part. 3. Tract. 4. resol. 57 — where, however, he says they should be persuaded to spit them out. The reason is, because they fall not by way of food, but of saliva.

HE ADDS, if anyone draw in a little water through the nostrils, which fall into the stomach, it does not impede him from communion, because it has not been passed by way of food or drink. And he teaches, if anything be drawn in by way of respiration, even if it can nourish or alter, as a fly. So also Fagundez de praecep. Eccles. praecep. 3. cap. 5. num. 14, and others. Bassaeus adds V. Communio: if one swallow blood falling from the head, drops of rain, or any particle of broth passed in unnoticed in the preliminary tasting.

THEY ASK secondly, whether if one swallow paper, chalk, a little piece of wood, or something similar eatable, they break the natural fast and impede the most holy communion.

THAT THEY IMPEDE many bring forward, cited by Diana p. p. 34 Tract. 14. de celebr. miss. resol. 51, and Parte 4. tract. 4. resol. 104. So Henriquez lib. 8 cap. 49, and in the gloss, line O., Nungus tract. 1. in 1. part. quaest. 50. art. 8, Villalobos tom. 1. tract. 7. diffic. 39, Reginaldus tract. 2. lib. 29 cap. 6. num. 118, Naldus V. Euch. num. 10, Layman lib. 5. tract. 4. cap. 6, Scortia de sacrificio Missae, lib. 2. cap. 7.

ABOUT Tobacco, if taken in the mouth it be swallowed, the same teach, Diana part. 5. tract. 13. resol. 1, and others.

AND indeed this opinion is to me the more probable, although they hold the opposite as more probable: Sum. Corona part. 4. cap. 4. num. 65, Ioan. de la Cruz p. 2 de Euch. quaest. 5. dub. 4, Ludovicus de S. Iuan: sum. part. 1. Tract. de Euch. cap. 23. concl. 4, Diana loco cit., and part. 3. tract. 4. resol. 38, who concedes the same of the remainder of yesterday's food, with Tabiena V. commun. §. 42, Tannerus tract. 4. disp. 5. quaest. 8. dub. 4. num. 79, Sanchez select. disp. 41. num. 23, Pasqualig. decis. 312, Ioan. Cruz quaest. 5. dub. 4, Baunius punct. cit. tract. 10. quaest. 22 — namely, that if it be swallowed, it does not impede communion.

Titius, a missionary priest in England, wishes to know whether he may bring Holy Communion to Mary, a parishioner who is not fasting, who suffers from consumption and must take milk every two hours by the physician’s prescription, although she is not confined to bed. Sometimes, feeling better, Mary comes to Mass at nine o’clock in the morning and would then like to receive Holy Communion even though not fasting, if this is permitted. Titius himself also, being old and sometimes suffering from influenza and its aftereffects, is compelled to abstain from saying Mass for two or three months. He could, however, sometimes celebrate Mass if it were lawful to take extract of meat or something of this kind beforehand; concerning this he doubts and asks to be instructed. Hence it is asked:

1. To what does the law of fasting before Holy Communion oblige?

2. What did the decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council of Dec. 7, 1906, concede?

3. What is to be said of the case?

1. To what does the law of fasting before Holy Communion oblige?

This law forbids those to receive Holy Communion who have taken any food or drink whatever after midnight. Those who are dangerously ill are excepted from the obligation of this law.

2. What mitigation was permitted by the decree S. C. C., Dec. 7th, 1906?

The dispositive portion of the decree is as follows: “ The infirm who have been lying in bed for a month without a certain hope of soon recovering may, by the counsel of the confessor, receive Holy Communion once or twice in a week, if it is about the infirm who dwell in pious houses where the Holy Sacrament is kept, or who enjoy the privilege of celebrating Mass in the domestic oratory; once or twice in a month for others, even if they have drunk something in the manner of a drink or tea.” By a subsequent decree dated March 6th, 1907, it was explained that the term decumbunt comprised those “although afflicted with grave illness and, in the physician’s judgment, unable to observe the natural fast, nevertheless cannot remain in bed or can rise from it for some hours of the day.”

The conditions therefore required for the application of this decree are: (a) The person should have been seriously ill for a month, and there should be no reasonable hope of recovery within a short time, say, a month. (b) With the advice of the confessor Holy Communion may be received once or twice a week if the Blessed Sacrament is reserved in the house where the sick person lies, in other cases once or twice a month, (c) Though something liquid has been taken after midnight, e.g., tea, chocolate, soup, even if an egg has been broken up in it.

3. The case. From what has been said it is clear that Titius may take Holy Communion to Mary even though she has taken milk every two hours after midnight.

The decree is not applicable to those who can and do go to Church not fasting, according to the interpretation put upon the decree at Rome, and followed by approved authors. “ It appears that the Holy Eucharist must be brought to the chamber,” says Génicot, (II, n. 202. ed. 6a).

The mitigation of the law is granted to the faithful who wish to communicate, not to priests who wish to say Mass.

Titius, a priest who alone serves a certain Mission, suffering from a cough, is accustomed to put a lozenge into his mouth so that he may sleep at night. One night, awakened as the clock struck twelve, without intending it he swallowed some of the lozenge that still remained in his mouth. He begins to doubt whether in the morning it is lawful to celebrate the Mass which the people are bound by precept to hear (for it was Sunday), or whether he ought to dismiss them without Mass. Hence it is asked:

1. What is required for that eating by which the fast prescribed before Holy Communion is broken?

2. Can smallness of matter, either with regard to the food taken or with regard to the time after twelve o’clock, be admitted in this law of fasting?

3. Can intention cause a fast to be broken that otherwise is not broken?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. What is required for a violation of the fast prescribed before Holy Communion?

What is taken must have the nature of food or drink or medicine; it must be from without the mouth; and it must be taken in the way food is usually taken, not e.g., by respiration.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, p. 110.

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, p. 110.

2. Is lightness of matter allowed in this law either in what is taken or in the time?

No, the law admits of no lightness of matter, for the prohibition does not fall on the food or time, but on the receiving of Holy Communion after taking the least food or drink after midnight.¹

3. Can the intention cause the fast to be broken when otherwise it would not be broken?

According to the rubric of the Missal (De Def., IX, 3) if a drop of water is swallowed inadvertently while washing the mouth it does not hinder Holy Communion. And theologians apply the same rule to a drop of rain, or soup mixed with the saliva and swallowed inadvertently. In these cases the common opinion, which St. Alphonsus says is certainly to be held, maintains that if this is done intentionally the fast is broken.²

2 Theol. Mor., lib. vi, 279.

4. The case. Midnight is past after the first stroke of twelve. Titius therefore after twelve swallowed a piece of the pastille which still remained in his mouth. In doing this he broke his fast even though he did it unintentionally, for the sucking of the pastille must be regarded as a continuous action of eating which did not finish until after twelve.³

3 Ibid.

If the necessity for the people to hear Mass is the only reason why Titius should say it, he should abstain from saying it, and explain the reason to the people. He may have prayers and give them a sermon. If he has reason to fear scandal or grumbling on account of his acting in this way he may say Mass, according to a sound opinion.⁴

4 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, p. 111.

Philip confesses on Saturday evening with the intention of receiving Communion on the following day. That night, however, while conversing familiarly with friends, he spoke about the secret crime of a certain third person. Afterwards he doubted vehemently whether perhaps by doing this he had committed a mortal sin. Still doubtful, on the next morning he went to church with the intention of confessing his doubt before Mass to the priest who alone served the church. When, however, he reached the church, behold, the priest had already begun Mass. Philip was unwilling to omit Holy Communion, and he had no other confessor to whom he could confess. In such great straits he thought that he could approach Holy Communion with the others during Mass, which he did. On the following Saturday, however, agitated by scruples, he came again to confession, declared what he had done, and asked what he ought to have done. Hence it is asked:

1. What dispositions of soul are required for Holy Communion?

2. How and concerning whom is that Tridentine phrase “Let him confess as soon as possible” (Session XIII, chapter 7) to be understood?

3. What is to be said of the case?

1. What dispositions of soul are required for Holy Communion?

The dispositions of soul required for Holy Communion are the state of grace and a good and upright intention.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, p. 106 ff.

2. How and of whom is the precept of the Council of Trent to be understood: “ Let him confess as soon as possible ” (Sess. XIII, c. 7)?

This is a grave precept imposed by the Council on those priests who though conscious of mortal sin and sorry for it did not go to confession before saying Mass on account of not having a confessor to whom they could confess.²

2 Ibid., p. 107.

3. The case. Philip was in doubt whether he was in the state of grace or not, because he was not sure that he had not committed a mortal sin of detraction since his last confession. As he was in doubt, he was not conscious of mortal sin, and only those who are conscious of mortal sin are bound to go to confession before Holy Communion. However, as the Eucharist is a sacrament of the living, and does not of itself certainly confer grace on a soul deprived of the supernatural life of God’s grace, those who receive it are bound to have moral certainty of their freedom from mortal sin in order that the sacrament may be fruitful. Therefore, one who doubts whether he is in the state of grace, although he is not bound to go to confession, yet he is bound to elicit an act of contrition so that thereby he may make sure, morally speaking, of being in the state of grace. Philip, therefore, should have done this, though he did not sin in omitting it, because he was in good faith.

Caius, a missionary Rector in England, sinned at night with the maidservant. Obliged to celebrate Mass the next morning, since he was unwilling to confess to the young priest who was his curate, inasmuch as the curate would suffer scandal and might suspect who the accomplice was, and since no other priest lived within three miles, he elicited an act of contrition and celebrated Mass. Afterwards, however, he was tormented by scruples when he considered that he could have confessed to the curate without making any mention, or making only some mention under general terms, of the sin with the maidservant, or at least could have gone by tramway to another priest without grave inconvenience. Hence it is asked:

1. What integrity is required in confession, and by what law?

2. Must the integrity of confession be procured even by revealing the sin of an accomplice?

3. What obligation rests upon a priest who, burdened by mortal sin, has celebrated with contrition alone because of the lack of a confessor?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. What sort of integrity is required in confession and by what law?

A young Hebrew, Baruch, makes the acquaintance of Bertha, a Catholic girl, and offers to marry her. She refuses unless he agrees to embrace the Catholic faith. He is willing, and after receiving instructions he becomes actually convinced of the truth of the Catholic belief and is desirous of being baptized, this to be followed by marriage with Bertha. The baptism takes place on the eve of the marriage. Both wish to receive Holy Communion on their wedding-day. To the officiating priest, however, Communion without previous Confession appears a novelty not to be countenanced, and he demands Confession from Baruch. As the newly baptized convert can not think of a sin since his just received baptism, the priest makes him confess some sins of his former life, and then gives him absolution.

What is to be said about this case?

Answer.

1. A conversion on account of marriage is to be treated with the greatest precaution, and while the applicant wishing to become a "convert for such reason must not be refused, he should be carefully examined. Even a worldly reason may lead to true conversion.

2. A candidate for baptism must, before receiving this sacrament, confess to the Catholic faith; he must also awaken contrition for his sins, and must affirm his resolution and give promise to lead a true Christian life, but he does not have to confess his sins. Upon true repentance these are forgiven him in the sacrament of Baptism and do not need absolution by the priest.

3. An adult, who receives baptism after being sufficiently instructed, should in accordance with old established practice of the Church receive Holy Communion immediately, without Confession.

4. The demand of a confession from Baruch shows lack of knowledge on the part of the priest, the more so as he let the newly baptized one confess some sins from his previous life so as to be able to give him sacramental absolution. Sins committed before baptism are no matter for absolution any more than they are for confession; such absolution is invalid and—unless excused on account of ignorance—sacrilegious, just as sacrilegious as if one would pronounce the words of consecration over water with intention to change the water into the Holy Eucharist.

The curate Lucius is called to Caius, who, nearly eighty years of age, and never before seriously ill in his life, had now suffered a stroke of paralysis. Lucius found him fully conscious, heard his confession and prepared to leave, not considering the man’s condition critical. Only at the urgent request of the anxious wife, and at the patient’s own solicitation, decided Lucius to give Caius Extreme Unction. Thereupon the patient asks for the Holy Viaticum, saying he felt his end approaching. Lucius hastened away to get the Viaticum. Meanwhile the daughter prayed with her father short acts of preparation for Holy Communion. Just before the priest returned with the Holy Viaticum Caius lost consciousness. Thus Lucius found him and waited a while for consciousness to return. But in vain. He was sorry not to be able to give the Viaticum to the unconscious man. He bestowed absolutio in articulo mortis, and bore the Holy Sacrament back again to the Church. Caius died shortly after, without regaining consciousness, and of course without the Viaticum. The question is, did Lucius act correctly in not giving the Viaticum to the unconscious man? Does unconsciousness of itself preclude the reception of the Holy Viaticum? To both questions the answer is briefly: No!

Now the argument. The actual reception of Holy Communion is necessary in general, necessitate praecepti divini et ecclesiastice. The divine Saviour expressly imposed actual reception, not merely upon the priests, but also upon the faithful. This is plainly evident from the Lord’s words at the institution of the Holy Sacrament of the Altar: “Take and eat... Do this in commemoration of me.” The Apostle (I Cor. ii, 23-27) confirms this beyond any doubt, by concluding the account of the institution of the most Holy Eucharist with the words: “For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.” The Council of Trent (sess. 13, cap. 2) confirms the divine command of actual reception as follows: “Our Saviour, when about to depart from this world to the Father, instituted this sacrament, in which he poured forth, as it were, the riches of his divine love toward men, making a memorial of his wonders; and in its reception he commanded us to cherish his memory and to proclaim his death until he himself comes to judge the world.”

St. THOMAS AQUINAS (3 qu., 80 a., II) refers, in further proof, also to the following words of the Lord (John 6, 54): “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.”

In the early centuries of Christianity the ardor of the faithful in the actual reception of Holy Communion was so great that the Church had no need of issuing a command in regard to it. This became necessary only when this ardor lessened. Since that time we have had many decrees of Popes and councils, by which the obligation of receiving Holy Communion is emphasized. For brevity’s sake we refer only to the fourth Lateran Council, under Pope Innocent III (can. 21), and to the Council of Trent (sess. 13, can. 9).

The reception of Holy Communion is directed especially in danger of death. This duty follows from the very purpose for which Our Lord chiefly commanded the reception of Holy Communion. The Council of Trent, in reference to this, says: “He wished this Sacrament to be received as the spiritual food of souls, by which those living by the life of him who said, ‘He who eats me shall also live because of me,’ may be nourished and strengthened; and as an antidote by which we may be freed from daily faults and preserved from mortal sins. Moreover, he wished it to be a pledge of our future glory and perpetual happiness, and therefore a symbol of that one body of which he himself exists as head, and to which he wished us, as members, to be bound by the closest bond of faith, hope, and charity.”

When, however, are we more in need of this spiritual food for the soul, this antidote against the poison of sin, this pledge of future glory and eternal bliss, as also of the most intimate union with Christ, our Head, as the living members of His mysterious Body, as when in danger of death, in that important moment upon which the whole of our eternity depends and when Satan once again employs all his cunning and power to plunge the soul into eternal ruin.

Hence St. JEROME (in Evang. St. Matt., c. 15) says with reference to the dangerously sick: “Jesus does not wish to send them away fasting, lest they faint on the way. Therefore he is endangered who hastens to reach the desired dwelling without the heavenly Bread. Hence the Angel also speaks to Elias: Arise and eat, because thou hast a great way to go.”

Similarly the Council of Trent expresses itself (1. c. cap. 8): “May that supersubstantial Bread truly be for the Christian faithful the life of the soul and perpetual health of mind, by whose strength, fortified on the journey of this wretched pilgrimage, they may be able to reach the heavenly fatherland, there to eat without any veil the same Bread of Angels which they now eat beneath sacred veils” (Compare Cat. Rom., p. 2, C. 4, nn. §4, 70).

The ecclesiastical precept of the reception of the Holy Viaticum is expressed unmistakably also in the constant practise of Holy Church. It has always been her chief concern that none should depart this life without the Holy Viaticum. Innumerable instances from the Church’s history bear witness to this constant concern of the Church. St. Dyonisius of Alexandria gives an account (Euseb. Hist. Eccl., 1, 4, c. 44) of an aged man, named Serapion, who perished in the persecution. Before his death he sent for the priest so as to receive the Holy Viaticum, The priest himself was seriously sick and could not possibly journey the long distance. In order, however, not to let the sick man die without the Holy Viaticum, he entrusted it to the messenger. “He handed a small portion of the Eucharist to the boy, ordering him to steep it in water and pour it drop by drop into the old man’s mouth... The boy steeped the morsel and poured it into the old man’s mouth. After gradually swallowing it, he immediately breathed forth his soul.”

St. AMBROSE shortly before his death received the Holy Viaticum, as we are informed by Paulinus, his secretary. Furthermore many Popes and councils expressly ordained the administration of Holy Viaticum to those in grave illness. Thus the Popes Siricius, INNOCENT I, Sixtus III, Leo the Great, Gelasius I, Felix III, GREGORY THE GREAT, Gregory III. Of the councils we mention those of Nice, the fourth of Carthage, the third of Orleans, the seventh, eleventh and sixteenth of Toledo, the second of Aix La Chapelle. The Council of Trent directs: “That the sacred Eucharist itself be carried to the sick and be diligently preserved in churches for this use, besides being joined with the greatest equity and reason, is found commanded in many councils and has been observed by the most ancient custom of the Catholic Church. Therefore this holy synod decrees that this salutary and necessary custom is altogether to be retained” (Compare Cat. Rom., p. 2).

Sr, Alphonsus Liguori teaches positively (Theol. Mor., 1. 6, n. 290 q.): “The reception of the Eucharist is necessary for adult faithful by a necessity not of means but of a binding divine precept... at the point of death by way of Viaticum... Every member of the faithful in a danger of life which he foresees or reasonably fears, for example in a serious illness, is bound under mortal sin to receive Communion.”

This holy father does not leave us in doubt either as to what must be understood by articulus mortis. He explains (H. Ap., tr. 15, nn, 19, 46): “As regards Viaticum, we say here that every member of the faithful is bound to be fortified with it whenever, while sick, he is placed in probable danger of death, as is one who lies seriously ill with mortal signs... The Eucharist can be received by one not fasting when Communion is given as Viaticum in danger of death. We have said ‘in danger,’ because to receive Viaticum it is neither necessary nor praiseworthy to wait for the time when no hope of life remains; it suffices that a probable danger of death be present.”

If then the reception of the Holy Viaticum is ordered and of obligation in danger of death, then naturally priests are also bound, under such circumstances, to administer Holy Viaticum.

But is there no exception from this rule? And is simple unconsciousness among the exceptions? Only those sick persons are excepted who can not receive the Holy Viaticum with becoming reverence. The Rituale Romanum warns: “Care must diligently be taken that Viaticum not be given to those from whom, because of delirium, or because of a continual cough or another similar illness, some indecency with injury to so great a Sacrament may be feared.”

St. THOMAS AQUINAS gives to unconsciousness special mention. He makes a distinction between the so-called feeble minded and those deprived of all use of reason. He teaches that the Holy Eucharist is not to be refused to the feeble minded. Of the others he distinguishes such who never had the use of reason, and such to whom the use of reason was not always lacking. If the latter, while in command of their reason, showed devotion to the Most Blessed Sacrament, then it must be administered to them in danger of death, if no irreverence is to be feared. “Some are said not to have the use of reason in two ways: in one way because they have a feeble use of reason, just as one who sees badly is said not to see; and because such persons can conceive some devotion toward this sacrament, this sacrament is not to be denied them. In another way some are said totally not to have the use of reason. Either, therefore, they never had the use of reason but remained thus from birth; and so this sacrament is not to be given to such persons, because no devotion toward this sacrament preceded in them in any way; or they were not always without the use of reason, and then, if devotion toward this sacrament previously appeared in them when they were in possession of their mind, this sacrament ought to be given to them at the point of death, unless perhaps danger of vomiting or spitting it out is feared.” Hence in the Fourth Council of Carthage (can. 76) it is read: “He who asks for penance during illness, if by chance, while the summoned priest is coming to him, he is rendered speechless under the oppression of illness or is turned to delirium, let those who heard him give testimony and let him receive penance; and if he is believed to be about to die immediately, let him be reconciled by the imposition of hands and let the Eucharist be poured into his mouth,”

St. ALPHONSUS in this entirely agrees with St. THOMAS.

Our case must be judged on these principles, Caius, shortly before the priest’s return with the blessed Sacrament, possessed the use of reason, and plainly showed his devotion to this Sacrament by urgently asking for the Holy Viaticum. In his case there was no danger of vomiting, etc., and no profanation of the Most Holy was to be feared, therefore. If Lucius did fear any such thing he should have simply made a trial with an unconsecrated Host, so as to remove all doubt in this respect. Unconsciousness of itself was certainly no reason for Lucius to leave the sick man without having satisfied his desire. A doubt as to the proper disposition for the reception of the Holy Viaticum could not at all exist in this case.

The genuinely Christian life led by Caius, a devout Catholic, was an additional guarantee in this respect. It is all the more to be regretted that Caius’ ardent desire for the Holy Viaticum was not satisfied. Lucius should certainly hereafter proceed according to the views of our loving Mother, the Church, who is so solicitous for her dying children. The dying will thank him for it in eternity.

P. Jos. A Leon, O. M. Cap.

The following interesting case appeared in the Monitore ecclesiastico: The priest Papyrius, afflicted with chronic stomach trouble, is directed by his physician to wash out his stomach every morning by means of a stomach-pump. He does this sometimes before, but more frequently after, Mass. The question is asked: Is the use of a stomach-pump permissible before or after Mass, i. e., before or after holy Communion?

The stomach-pump is constructed of a rubber tube, which is lowered through the mouth into the stomach to flush it with water or other fluid. Attached to the tube is an arrangement by which the fluid and undigested food are brought up. Such a pump serves, therefore, chiefly the purpose of extracting undigested food from the stomach. Often the tube is lubricated with some kind of oil to facilitate the introduction.

With these facts in mind, we will take up the first question: Is the use of the stomach-pump permissible before holy Communion. The jejunium naturale is imperiled, either by particles of the oil with which the tube is greased, or through the fact that some of the water may be sucked up by the stomach. It is certain that any lubrication with oil must be omitted in order to preserve the jejunium naturale, and it can be omitted all the more easily as physicians do not consider such lubrication necessary. But is the jejunium naturale violated by the water introduced by the pump into the stomach? The jejunium naturale is broken in the opinion of theologians under the following conditions: (1) that the thing taken have the character of food or drink, i. e., it must be digestible; (2) that it be taken from outside. Saliva or blood from nose, mouth or lungs may enter the stomach without interfering with the jejunium; (3) that it be taken after the manner of eating or drinking (S. Alph. 1. vi., n. 280). In explaining this last condition Lehmkuhl states explicitly that food and drink do not break the jejunium naturale if taken either after the manner of saliva, or after the manner of inhalation, or after the manner of drawing in through the nostrils (II. n. 160). Per modum salivae means that something has been taken into the mouth for cleansing teeth or mouth, or for tasting, and, upon spitting it out, some of it remains. Even the Mass rubrics allow rinsing the mouth, even at the risk of a little water entering the stomach. (De defectibus Missae tit. 9, n. 3.) Per modum aspirationis means that gnats, dust, snow, are accidentally taken into the stomach by inhalation. Per modum attractionis per nares: it is not forbidden to take a pinch of snuff before holy Communion, even if accidentally a particle of it should be swallowed. St. Alphonsus adds that even the chewing of tobacco (though extremely filthy) does not violate the jejunium, even if unintentionally some particles enter the stomach by getting mixed with the saliva. It is evident from all this that the Church does not prohibit food and drink to enter the stomach before holy Communion, but merely forbids it to be taken per modum cibi et potus. Lacroix explains this in the words: Then something is taken after the manner of eating or drinking if what is swallowed, and the manner of swallowing it, suffice in moral estimation for someone to be considered to have eaten or drunk. (L. vi, P. i, n. 554.) There is no doubt, then, that the stomach-pump may be used without violating the jejunium, for it cannot be asserted that by its application the patient eats or drinks.

The other question is asked: Is the use of the stomach-pump permissible immediately after holy Communion? To this question we must answer “No,” for there is danger that the sacred species may be brought up with other matter and desecration would take place. It is true that the process of digestion begins as soon as the sacred species comes in contact with the saliva in the mouth. Nevertheless, the process is retarded in a weak stomach, where it takes place very slowly, and there should therefore be an interval of a half hour at least—under circumstances even a whole hour—before the stomach may be so treated without irreverence to the Blessed Sacrament. (Capellman, Medicina Past.: ed. III. lat p. 124.)

A priest is called to a sick person, who, after making Confession, receives the Viaticum. The patient immediately shows violent agitation, pointing his finger to the inside of his mouth. The priest looks there, and, to his horror, sees that to the rubber plate in the roof of the mouth of the patient the Viaticum sticks like glued. It is a well-known fact that it is very difficult even for a person in good health to loosen with the tongue the sacred species from such a rubber plate, often a moistening with some liquid is required to effect detaching. Our patient, in his weakened condition, could not use the tongue to loosen the Viaticum from the plate, and the priest decided to let a member of the family carefully remove from the patient’s mouth the plate, which he then immersed in a bowl of water, then, after the sacred species had become separated from the plate, he washed the plate in the same water, took the entire contents of the bowl home and put it into the sacrarium, then returned to the sick man, and gave him holy Communion once more; the sick man, now relieved of the false teeth, swallowed the sacred species without difficulty. Did the priest act correctly?

In the procedure of the priest in this case may be seen his confusion, and it cannot be recommended for imitation; it was neither practical nor correct. It was at all events unnecessary to go home and get a new species. He should have saved this trouble, as well as the comment which may have been excited by his repeated visit. The simplest way would have been to remove the sacred Host by means of the finger, or with the aid of a knife, from the plate, to place it with a little water in a clean vessel (or spoon) and give water and Host at once to the patient to drink. Thereupon he should have washed rubber plate, utensil and finger in the same vasculum, and this ablutio should also have been given to the patient to drink.

The proceeding was, moreover, incorrect; it is not permissible to handle the sacred species in the way he did, and to place the same immediately in the sacrarium.

As the decomposition of the sacred species in so short a time cannot be supposed, and is at the very least doubtful, he should have placed the vasculum in the tabernacle, and only after the lapse of at least a few days might have placed the contents in the sacrarium.

Dr. John Ackerl.

Is it lawful for a person to receive holy Communion when there exists a well-founded doubt as to whether the person has broken the fast required for holy Communion?

Answer.—Theologians are not agreed as to whether it is lawful or not. Rigorists maintain that under no circumstances is it lawful to receive holy Communion, unless one is sure that the fast has not been broken since midnight preceding the holy Communion. This is according to their general principle: In dubio, quod tutius est, tenendum. This principle, of course, is denied by all those who adopt probabilism as a system of morals or a norm of moral conduct. But the probabilists themselves do not agree as to whether it is lawful to receive holy Communion when one is in doubt as to whether the fast has been broken. For the sake of clearness, it is necessary to premise that the doubt concerning the fast may arise either from the fact that one has partaken of food or drink, but is in doubt as to whether it was before or after midnight, or one may be sure that one was fasting at midnight, but doubts whether he broke the fast after midnight. The principle on which the probabilists solve the case is: Melior est conditio possi dentis. But they do not agree in the application of the principle. Some maintain that when doubt exists about the fast required for holy Communion, then the law forbidding holy Communion to the non-fasting is in possession and makes the Communion under the circumstances unlawful. Others, on the contrary, maintain that when one is in doubt as to whether one is fasting or not, such an one is in possession as against the law, because the law is doubtful, that is to say, it is doubtful whether the law applies to this particular case, making the Communion illicit. Owing to this different application of the principle melior est conditio possedentis, we have three different opinions of the theologians belonging to the probabilistic school about this matter.

The first opinion holds that in either case it is lawful to receive holy Communion. That is to say, whether you are sure of the fact that you partook of food or drink, and doubt only concerning the time, namely, whether it was before or after midnight that you partook of the same, or whether you are sure that you were fasting at midnight and are in doubt whether you ate anything after that time or not, in either case you may tuta conscientia approach the holy table. Sporer, among others, holds this opinion, de sacrif. Missae, VI., 474, and justifies it in this manner: "The right that I have to receive holy Communion cannot be rendered uncertain by an uncertain or doubtful fact; but the fact that I broke my fast is doubtful. To prove the major, it is only necessary to recall that in law facts are not presumed, but must be proven. The precept to receive holy Communion fasting is a prohibition. The prohibition must be established by fact, that is, unless you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that you have broken your fast after midnight, there exists no prohibition against your receiving holy Communion. St. Alphonsus thinks well of this manner of reasoning (de conscien. 38).

The second opinion holds that it is unlawful to receive holy Communion, unless one is sure that one is fasting. No one must receive holy Communion, unless he knows himself to be worthy. Now if one does not know for certain whether he is fasting or not, he does not know whether he is worthy or not. Therefore let him prove himself worthy or else abstain. "But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of that bread" (I. Cor. xi, 28).

This opinion maintains that we have no absolute right to receive holy Communion, but only a conditional right, conditional, namely, on our worthiness, and until we satisfy the condition and prove our worthiness, we have no right to holy Communion. As no one has the right to receive Holy Orders unless he can prove the justice of his claims to them, by proving his age and legitimate birth, so no one has a right to receive holy Communion, unless he can prove, among other things, that he is fasting. And as no injury is done to him who is refused Holy Orders, because he cannot prove his age or legitimate birth, so no injury is done to one who is refused holy Communion because he cannot prove, beyond doubt, that he is fasting. Thus the Salmanticenses, Sanchez, Bonacina, etc.